Parking "Contractual Payment Charge" - Sussex Security Solutions

bazster

It's very out-of-date. Despite the ostensibly very restrictive list of POPLA appeal grounds, POPLA has in fact been hearing (and allowing) appeals for a far wider range of reasons, including points of law.

Coupon-mad

These should help you re POPLA stage:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/secret-reasons-you-can-use-in-your.html

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla/

Also on that first link do take time to read Parking Prankster's blogs about winding up Highview (Tesco use them in car parks). His first soft challenge appeals are hilarious - then he wins at POPLA with a proper appeal!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/17/carpark_superhero_numberplate/

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/highview-parking-send-in-map-of-wrong.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/parking-poker-highview-parking-take-on.html

Notters_the_seagull

Hi all,

Here's a pic of their entrance signage. Enjoy.

i41.tinypic.com/2iqe5jk.jpg

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

bazster wrote: »

It's very out-of-date. Despite the ostensibly very restrictive list of POPLA appeal grounds, POPLA has in fact been hearing (and allowing) appeals for a far wider range of reasons, including points of law.

Yes indeed I need to overall it but I just don't hve the time at the moment

Coupon-mad

Notters_the_seagull wrote: »

Hi all,

Here's a pic of their entrance signage. Enjoy.

i41.tinypic.com/2iqe5jk.jpg

Hmmm...is that it?!

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2iqe5jk&s=5

What a mess of a sign, far too small writing to be read by a driver in a car and with extra bits stuck on which don't even talk about visitor bays. There are not even any headings or any clear warning in larger lettering. Almost as if they want you to miss it...;)

Notters_the_seagull

Also seems to suggest the maximum stay for anyone is 24 hours? Even residents?!

bazster

Notters_the_seagull wrote: »

Hi all,

Here's a pic of their entrance signage. Enjoy.

i41.tinypic.com/2iqe5jk.jpg

That is indeed entertaining. Love the bit where they say they'll issue a Contractual Payment Charge to any vehicle in breach of the T&C's. So it's both a contractual charge and damages for a breach! Wow, that's a neat trick!

Notters_the_seagull

bazster wrote: »

That is indeed entertaining. Love the bit where they say they'll issue a Contractual Payment Charge to any vehicle in breach of the T&C's. So it's both a contractual charge and damages for a breach! Wow, that's a neat trick!

You're getting a bit technical for me there, can you explain?

nigelbb

Notters_the_seagull wrote: »

You're getting a bit technical for me there, can you explain?

Private Parking Companies try & make out that you entered into a contract for parking with them. Then they say either that the £100 charge is for damages for breaching that contract or that it was a charge that you agreed to e.g. £100 to park outside a marked bay. They usually flip flop between the two as here. It's either a charge or it's damages for a breach of contract. It can't be both. In fact it's neither as it is an unenforceable penalty intended to deter you from overstaying or parking outside a marked bay.

bazster

Notters_the_seagull wrote: »

You're getting a bit technical for me there, can you explain?

OK. If I enter into a contract with you that I will pay you £100 in return for you painting my garden gnome pink, that is a contractual charge, and if you paint my gnome pink then legally I must pay you £100.

But supposing (i) I enter into a contract with you which says I will give you a packet of Smarties if you paint my garden gnome pink (ii) you do indeed paint my garden gnome pink (iii) I refuse to give you a packet of Smarties, that is a breach of contract on my part and you may sue me for damages.

In the former case, everything is clear-cut: I owe you £100, no argument. Although, if you happen to be a VAT-registered garden gnome painter, you must charge VAT and hand it over to HMRC.

In the latter case, if you sue me for £100 you must be able to demonstrate how my breach of contract cost you £100. Which of course it didn't, because unless they are selling gold-plated Smarties now you could buy yourself a packet for a few pence,which is all I would actually owe you in damages - but it doesn't attract VAT, 'cos damages for a breach don't.

So the £100 you demand from me has to be either a sum that I agreed in a contract to pay you or damages for me breaching a contract. It cannot be both, and as you can see the two things behave in quite different ways so if you are not clear which it is when you decide to sue me for £100 then you are on a hiding to nothing (and sooner or later HMRC might take an interest in your fudging of the issue too).