POFA 2012: Well there's a funny thing!

Guys_Dad

Just trying to work my way through your original post.

A couple of your quotes.
POFA 2012 defines a parking charge thus:

(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, and

(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,

Now, from the rest of your post, the word "charge" above refers to the "penalty charge" as distinct from the "per hour charge", if there is one.

You then say

“relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—

(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or

(b)authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

But when you write "A contract is only a "relevant contract" for POFA 2012 Schedule 4 if it requires the payment of parking charges! So in a free car park, where the contract sets out only damages for breach but no parking charges, the contract is not "relevant"!!!" you are using "charges" here to refer to "per hour charges" rather than "penalty charges" which can't be right.

The problem is the use of the word "charges" being used for 2 distinctly different things.

I am jot sure if you were being serious or not on this point, but your main thrust of the post seems well reasoned to me. Would love to hear a legally backed opinion on that, though as no doubt buried somewhere in the law books something that might turn this on its head.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Just trying to work my way through your original post.

A couple of your quotes.
POFA 2012 defines a parking charge thus:

(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, and

(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,

Not my quote, it's a quote from the Act.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Now, from the rest of your post, the word "charge" above refers to the "penalty charge" as distinct from the "per hour charge", if there is one.

How on earth did you work that out? The word "penalty" isn't used anywhere, nor is the term "per-hour charge". A penalty would in any case would be unlawful, so that is hardly likely to be covered by the word "charge" in the Act, and if it meant "damages" it would've said so, as it did in part (b) of the definition.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You then say

“relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—

(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or

(b)authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

I don't say it, it's a quote from the Act.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

But when you write "A contract is only a "relevant contract" for POFA 2012 Schedule 4 if it requires the payment of parking charges! So in a free car park, where the contract sets out only damages for breach but no parking charges, the contract is not "relevant"!!!" you are using "charges" here to refer to "per hour charges" rather than "penalty charges" which can't be right.

No I'm not, I mention neither "penalty" nor "per hour", I am relying purely on the definition of "parking charges" in POFA 2012 i.e. something arising as a contractual obligation but distinct from damages.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The problem is the use of the word "charges" being used for 2 distinctly different things.

Not by me it isn't, you are the one who unilaterally introduced the two different things.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I am jot sure if you were being serious or not on this point, but your main thrust of the post seems well reasoned to me. Would love to hear a legally backed opinion on that, though as no doubt buried somewhere in the law books something that might turn this on its head.

Yup, being entirely serious.

Guys_Dad

I park in a car park that costs me £1.00 for 2 hours, £1,50 for 3 bhours. That is the charge I pay for parking.

I park in a free car park and overstay. They hit me with a charge.

Same word, different meaning.

As far as your post went, I am aware that the quotes were from the legislation, but you posted them, that's why I attributed the quotes to you.

But you did write "A contract is only a "relevant contract" for POFA 2012 Schedule 4 if it requires the payment of parking charges!".

So in what context are you using the word charges there - the charge for using the car park or the charge they try to impose if you contravene their "rules"?

I tried to clarify the difference between the parking cost in a chargeable car park from the charges they attempt to levy for alleged breach of contract by referring to one a a "per hour" parking charge and the other as a "penalty" charge,

bazster

For goodness' sake G.D., you are forgetting the fundamental point: they don't levy charges if you "break the rules", they claim damages. Damages are not a "charge", they are restitution for a loss (well, an imaginary loss in the case of PPC's). Not the same thing at all. If part (a) of the definition of "parking charges" were to include damages, it would've said so, as it did in part (b). It wouldn't have said "in the nature of a fee or charge", it would've said "in the nature of a fee or charge or damages."

Damages <> Charges.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

For goodness' sake G.D., you are forgetting the fundamental point: they don't levy charges if you "break the rules", they claim damages. Damages are not a "charge", they are restitution for a loss (well, an imaginary loss in the case of PPC's). Not the same thing at all. If part (a) of the definition of "parking charges" were to include damages, it would've said so, as it did in part (b). It wouldn't have said "in the nature of a fee or charge", it would've said "in the nature of a fee or charge or damages."

Damages <> Charges.

I am sure that there are many people on this forum who understand completely the point and relevance to beating the PPCs of this thread.

Sadly, due to age, weather, lack of intelligence and not really too bothered about debating points, I am not one of them.

All I know is you used charge and charges meaning 2 different things and that is what I pointed out.