VCS WIN - PPCs can offer contracts

bargepole

Sigh ... another day, another Perky username.

Stroma

ReturnOfTheGoat wrote: »

Listen to this person. THEY know what they are talking about.

I would rather take a calculated risk of more than 99% of non paid invoices not going to court perky, and I'm sure that plenty of other people will assess it in the same way.

ripped_off_driver

ReturnOfTheGoat? ReturnOfTheScroat more like. You can trust the PPC imbeciles not to know what is going on.

Despite polyplastic's hyperbole the ground rules have not changed at all. It was made clear in the PoFA briefing documents that contract law remains as before. There are a vanishingly small number of court cases taken by PPCs, equivalent to the risk of being hit by a bus.

This ruling is very limited despite scroat's attempt to big it up. It concerned a permit scheme whereby terms were provided to drivers in writing and they accepted these by parking. Completely different from the normal PPC operation of a stranger driver and signage.

If you look at the ruling you can see this loud and clear as witness the following excerpts:

"It is common ground that the charges with which this appeal is concerned are charges levied on motorists who were permit holders but, for example, who parked in the wrong place or parked outside the markings of a bay. It is not concerned with "pure" trespassers. Accordingly, in my judgment the place to begin is the terms on which permits were issued ...

Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass."

When you look at these passages it is clear that the ruling does not have wide application at all but is limited to "contraventions" of permit holders only. No doubt the BPA will spin it otherwise but each case turns on its own facts and this can never be a precedent for other case involving non-permit holders or even permit holders who have not accepted the terms of the permit scheme.

bondy_lad

wheres coupon mad when you need her????

ripped_off_driver

It has been asked why was the decision of the UTT Tribunal so important and this so unimportant. The UTT made an expansive judgement that made far reaching conclusions about the contracting powers of PPCs. This judgement is a very narrow one solely on the facts of the case - a permit scheme with "contraventions" being committed only by permit holders which was pre-towing ban, so allowing that to form part of the judgement.

Remember the Pepipoo Challenge? Some years ago Perky was challenged by a Pepipoo member to take a case against that member who would go onto his site to get a ticket deliberately. Of course Perky ducked the challenge, too busy on the dating forums or something.

surfboy1

ReturnOfTheGoat wrote: »

If you are so sure why dont you get a ticket from a PPC - Igonore all requests for payment - Post the details on here & see if it ends up court.

If it does and you win then you will prove that you are right. Lose and you can come up with some excuse as to why you lost, or all the other Trekkies on here will claim that you were a 'plant' and how you are in league with 'Perky'.

If God himself declared PPC's had the right to issue and enforce parking on private land you would still deny it.

Feed The Goat x

We all know what you mean by "enforce parking on private land".
It is to see how much money you can squeez out of motorists.
What you dont seem to grasp is that there is a recession on , times are hard, shops are closing down left right and centre, you are helping to drive genuine customers away, all so you can make a quick proffit. That is pure greed, you dont "manage" car parks at all, you bleed motorists dry. What will you do when there is no more money to bleed from the public?
You dont even pay VAT back to the government.What wonderfull examples of human beings you are!
I hope all this money makes you happy and you sleep well every night!

jkdd77

polyplastic wrote: »

5. "The case law from Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1, and Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1987] EWCA Civ 6 has not been overturned in the slightest." Correct, the case law on damages, and the need for them to be properly ascertained has not altered. The case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Company has not changed either and that relates to your agreement to be bound by the conditions for parking such that the parking charge (not damages) is £100. Dunlop etc in this quote are cases that argue damages and which is a completely different issue. If the parking company is claiming damages then you can use those cases. If the PPC is not claiming damages you can't use those cases as part of your defence. Can you please look at the BPA COP paras 19.5 and 19.6. From that you will see two different forms of claim. One is for damages and the other for the contract sum. The COP had the nod from the Sec of State for transport as part of the run up to the introduction of POFA. So the Government has given tacit approval to £100 being reasonable. .

Polyplastic

Firstly, the BPA guidance is utterly irrelevant in law, as indeed is any Government "approval" of such guidance (in fact, the DfT has stated that charges must be a reasonable pre-estimate of actual loss). Some PPCs have attempted to claim for a "contractual sum" in the county courts, and have usually failed miserably, albeit that the small claims track of the county court can represent a bit of a lottery.

In one case, (Observices v Thurlow, 2010, 0QT34807), the claimed PPC charge of £100 was upheld by the county court, but quashed on appeal as a disguised penalty by a QC sitting as a circuit judge. Although not case law, this is likely to be far more persuasive than a worthless BPA "code of practice".

Case law and obiter dicta from the Interfoto case:
suggests that "contractual sums" can be struck down as disguised penalties, and/or as being "onerous".
http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Interfoto_Picture_Library_Ltd._v_Stiletto_Visual_Programmes_Ltd.

Extract_from_casebrief_summary_of_Interfoto_case wrote:

Dillon remarks that the holding fee of £5/day was too high – exorbitant given the industry standard of ~£3.50/week. He finds that in fact the appellant would have had a strong case for arguing the clause is void as a penalty clause, but that was not argued...

After analyzing the various cases he concludes that one should look to several factors in determining whether one party should be bound:
the nature of the transaction;
the character of the parties;
the sufficiency of the notice/proportionality; and
is it fair to hold them to the condition in question?

If the "contractual charge" is vague (does payment mean the RK can keep their car there forever?) then it is even less likely to be enforceable, and the absence of an immediate payment mechanism makes clear that it is intended as a penalty rather than as a genuine offer of the service of parking.

Furthermore, I understand from posts on other forums that, if it is a contractual sum, then PPCs must list in their accounts in a certain way, which seemingly none of them do.

Referring to a POPLA appeal where the charge was claimed as "damages", defended as "damages", and found to be "a contractual charge" despite this not being claimed by the PPC, does not show that the motorist put the wrong argument forward. Instead, it merely shows how manifestly biased POPLA is and why appealing to POPLA is a complete waste of time.

After all, the PPC is surely more likely to pursue cases on which they have already spent time, effort and £27+ VAT at POPLA rather than those which have been ignored from the start.

No-one is advocating deliberately abusing private parking- we are merely saying any amount claimed must bear some relation to the actual loss suffered by the landowner or managing agent, and that claims for £100 are not a "reasonable pre-estimate of actual loss", but rather a disguised penalty, which is unenforceable.

SodG24

ReturnOfTheGoat wrote: »

If you are so sure why dont you get a ticket from a PPC - Igonore all requests for payment - Post the details on here & see if it ends up court.

If it does and you win then you will prove that you are right. Lose and you can come up with some excuse as to why you lost, or all the other Trekkies on here will claim that you were a 'plant' and how you are in league with 'Perky'.

If God himself declared PPC's had the right to issue and enforce parking on private land you would still deny it.

Feed The Goat x

I have and G24 have not taken me to court even though they know who I am. I've even broken Parking Eye T&Cs and then sent them an email goading them - they haven't bothered either.

I'll take the advice of the legal expert on Watchdog thank you - it was issued BEFORE the original VCS case and except for the bit around it being for the driver only still holds as valid.

peter_the_piper

The answer to this is to get in a company to MANAGE the parking not just leech off the drivers.

SodG24

ReturnOfTheGoat wrote: »

Not true! The landowners instrct a PPC when people are parking on their land when they shouldnt be or parking incorrectly on their land perhaps taking up 2 bays instead of 1. If you were a shopkeeper with limited spaces for your customers to park and people (for example)from the factory down the road used your spaces to park whilst they went to work thus stopping customers from shopping in your shop - what would you do? Please answer - What would you do??

Come on, at least be honest and admit you work for one of the PPCs or do BPA rules not matter to you while you still expect motorists to adhere to PPC made up rules ?