VCS WIN - PPCs can offer contracts

ripped_off_driver

Total rubbish from our PPC troll hanger-on. AIUI the Pepipoo Challenge was issued to Perky in around 2008 by a then pepipoo mod. Perky used every excuse in the book as to why he could not take it up. 5 years later the challenge remains unanswered.

surfboy1

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??

The landowner does not "instruct" a PPC in most case, a PPC convinces the landowner that they have a problem and that they can "manage" that problem for free or maybe even give the landowner a small kickback.
You know your buisness model is to make as much money as possible dont you?

ManxRed

ReturnOfTheGoat wrote: »

I think if you did a bit of digging you would find the challenge was taken and won by the PPC. It was then alleged by you lot that the motorist was a 'plant' and all records were deleted by this site.

Liar.

Would you like me to call the fire brigade on behalf of your pants?

peter_the_piper

As ROTG is so enamoured of PPC's and they can do no wrong can he explain the "first in ,last out scenario " which regularly happens in ANPR controlled car parks,

spacey2012

As the rateable value of a charging car park is around 30 times less than a charging car park, constant pressure should be kept up on all car parks claiming free parking rateable discount that issuing parking charges.
they are either free or you either charge.
If the parking charge is a contractual offer, then it is a charge to park and the car park is incorrectly assessed for business rates.

Rather than argue with dull headed ex-car dealers that run PPC's, take the arguments to your local council and MP, keep up the pressure, refuse to go away, write letters to newspapers about the cash going un-collected and connect this to benefit cuts and service cuts.
Bring public anger on top.
If these so called free car parks want to profit from charges, make them pay the going rate.
Find a car park infested with a PPC, request planning consent documents ve made available, look for breeches in time restrictions and permissions, does it say free ? yet they have charge notices in force.
Bug the planning officers to enforce the rules, again write to newspapers when they refuse to enforce the rules.
Keep up the pressure.
Walls do tumble down.

surfboy1

spacey2012 wrote: »

As the rateable value of a charging car park is around 30 times less than a charging car park, constant pressure should be kept up on all car parks claiming free parking rateable discount that issuing parking charges.
they are either free or you either charge.
If the parking charge is a contractual offer, then it is a charge to park and the car park is incorrectly assessed for business rates.

Rather than argue with dull headed ex-car dealers that run PPC's, take the arguments to your local council and MP, keep up the pressure, refuse to go away, write letters to newspapers about the cash going un-collected and connect this to benefit cuts and service cuts.
Bring public anger on top.
If these so called free car parks want to profit from charges, make them pay the going rate.
Find a car park infested with a PPC, request planning consent documents ve made available, look for breeches in time restrictions and permissions, does it say free ? yet they have charge notices in force.
Bug the planning officers to enforce the rules, again write to newspapers when they refuse to enforce the rules.
Keep up the pressure.
Walls do tumble down.

Can i add.. make very vocal complaints to the retailers and buisnesses that allow these PPCs to infest them, you never know.... Parking Eye and others have been booted off some car parks!

psimmons200

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Thank you for that. Not what any of us wanted to hear, I suppose, but I suspected it may have tilted the game somewhat.

We shall have to see whether or not the PPCs start quoting vcs -v- HMRC in their cases from now on.

Actually this nothing for the PPCs, as they never disputed that their 'contracts' existed in the first place - so it would make no sense for them to even mention it.

It removes the previous defence that the contract definitively cannot have existed, even if appropriate signage was in place, but a ream of others remain. The court of appeal has by no means unilaterally decreed that any and all parking charges will result in an automatic court order against the motorist.

ReturnOfTheGoat wrote: »

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

I don't think many are disputing that. As m'lud said in the most recent ruling, there's nothing to stop me contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace for £1. I do however expect that the almighty is familiar with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

surfboy1

"My advise may seem radical to some but here goes....

PARK ACCORDING TO THE TERMS & CONDITIONS OFFERED BY THE CAR PARK OPERATOR AND YOU WILL NOT GET A TICKET.

IF YOU GET A TICKET DUE TO BREAKING THE TERMS OFFERED PAY IT.

IF YOU GENUINELY BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN ISSUED A TICKET UNFAIRLY THEN APPEAL TO THE OPERATOR WITIN 28 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE TICKET. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE RESPONSE - APPEAL TO POPLA. IF POPLA REJECT YOU APPEAL - PAY THE CHARGE.

SIMPLES!"
Quote from Returnofthegoat.

Well that is dam good advice for us motorists, but .... hold on ......surely that will mean that you are not making a proffit, your company will go bust! You only option is to make up some ridiculous rules that are very easily broken by unsuspecting motorists.
Oh, thats what happens now anyway!
What a wonderfull management service you provide !

polyplastic

jkdd77 my reference to 19.5 and 19.6 in the COP was not to enhance the reputation of the COP but merely to draw to the attention of readers that there are more potential claims against the motorist, from PPCs than just damages. There are statutory defences to damages, as well as the support of the Dunlop case, which can assist the driver. However, if the claim is for a contract sum it becomes an uphill struggle to challenge that if the signage is correct. There is case law against you; there is s6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs against you; there is the COP against you; POFA against you. Motorists must not believe that a claim may be solely about damages.

It would be quite helpful if those seeking advice would actually post up a photo of the main car park sign. That sets out the contract terms and conditions and without that information advice is given very much in a vacuum

One poster cited a case going to appeal where it was determined that a contract sum was a penalty. Having to go to an appeal reflects the extent of the challenge when defending your position against a contract sum claim. Anyone wishing to go that far is free to do so, but you then have the "perils of litigation"- you may win you may not, you may incur costs. That's when you have to start balancing options on how to deal with a claim. At least POPLA is free. The easier option is to play by the rules as one poster has suggested.

Bargepole - there is no contract in your example as the legal requirements for the creation of a contract have not been established. In any event, to avoid doubt, the car park superintendent may just not bother to plant a ticket, but instead just issue a Notice to Keeper under para 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA. That way, there is no risk of any claim from you for some alleged contract sum.

Polyplastic

spacey2012

surfboy1 wrote: »

Can i add.. make very vocal complaints to the retailers and buisnesses that allow these PPCs to infest them, you never know.... Parking Eye and others have been booted off some car parks!

You can do but retailers usually hire the retail space from a management company, so have little choice.
The rateable value of the car park is charged against the proprietor of the land, these are the people responsible for bringing in these parasites .

If the kickbacks they get is out reached by the increase in rates following a targeted campaign to make them pay the correct rate for a charging car park, they will very quickly re-consider the options.