Parking Eye court case

Greatest_Player

I've been reading POFA Schedule 4. It stops short of mentioning charges that a PPC can levy but unlike the February 2011 Appeal Court where Thirlow defeated OBServices, this legislation has been introduced more recently and here for the first time, the charges are discussed and the dubious "discount" is acknowledged.


Does this in itself overturn the precedent set at the Thirlow case of discount rates revealing lack of provable loss? In addition, the many instances of DJs declaring PPC demands as "penalties" all date to pre-POFA. All of this has confused me somewhat. Is it possible that there are flaws within English law? Doesn't the OFT's protocol on Financial Penalties constitute statutory requirement? If so, these things might run counter to one another.

Coupon-mad

Greatest_Player wrote: »

I've been reading POFA Schedule 4. It stops short of mentioning charges that a PPC can levy but unlike the February 2011 Appeal Court where Thirlow defeated OBServices, this legislation has been introduced more recently and here for the first time, the charges are discussed and the dubious "discount" is acknowledged.

Does this in itself overturn the precedent set at the Thirlow case of discount rates revealing lack of provable loss? In addition, the many instances of DJs declaring PPC demands as "penalties" all date to pre-POFA. All of this has confused me somewhat. Is it possible that there are flaws within English law? Doesn't the OFT's protocol on Financial Penalties constitute statutory requirement? If so, these things might run counter to one another.

No-one knows the answer yet, as most cases are 'in process' but each county court case is separate and the decisions can vary. POFA does not overturn basic contract law about penalties but you may well find a judge thinking it does. It's a lottery, as ever.

Greatest_Player

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No-one knows the answer yet, as most cases are 'in process' but each county court case is separate and the decisions can vary. POFA does not overturn basic contract law about penalties but you may well find a judge thinking it does. It's a lottery, as ever.

I see what you mean, County Court is the friendly "non-heavy" stage. I couldn't imagine POFA trumping long-standing laws but this may well be where a Court of Appeal comes into effect should the judge ignore tested case law.

I can see a distant light at the end of the tunnel. The antagonist will cite the decree complete with its acknowledgement of "discounts" and references to charges compliant to other sections, etc. which it hopes constitutes a green light to enforce disproportionate charges in violation of every unrepealed protocol dating back centirues defending victims from financial bullying by non-authorities. But the change in behaviour since circa 2009 when one-time penalties became "parking charge notices" is revealing, and the absence of statutory regulation I feel is a sure sign that the invoices are every bit legal (insofar as a PPC can seek payment) but no part of POFA rules them enforceable . Here I believe each case would be judged on its merits so it may very well be that a defendant needs to draw attention to existing principles. Does that make sense CM?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I agree, when I read thru POFA last year and we were first discussing it, the Act didn't suddenly make the 'charge' any more enforceable than it ever was, it simply added registered keepers into the equation (and banned clamping, etc.).

Greatest_Player

I've read a lot of old posts, not all of them because there are thousands but mainly those around the October mark of 2012 when the act came into force and clamping came to a long overdue end. Your posts feature a lot so you'll see a slight increase in Thanks every so often which is me striking you and others on those threads.

I can see how the state has been clever here. By keeping it legal and unenforceable it serves both justice to the keeper with the knowledge and sucks big money out of the vulnerable majority and this sees revenue returns via the tax system.

Umkomaas

Greatest_Player wrote: »

I've read a lot of old posts, not all of them because there are thousands but mainly those around the October mark of 2012 when the act came into force and clamping came to a long overdue end. Your posts feature a lot so you'll see a slight increase in Thanks every so often which is me striking you and others on those threads.

I can see how the state has been clever here. By keeping it legal and unenforceable it serves both justice to the keeper with the knowledge and sucks big money out of the vulnerable majority and this sees revenue returns via the tax system.

The one piece of advice from October 2012 to April 2013 to ignore now is .............. IGNORE!

Greatest_Player

Umkomaas wrote: »

The one piece of advice from October 2012 to April 2013 to ignore now is .............. IGNORE!

Not at all. POFA has changed one thing and one thing only, it now enables operators to go after registered keepers for what they could formerly do only to persons they knew drove the car.

The law is still the law and penalties have not been legalised and it is not difficult for a motorist to establish that anything unconscionable is clearly penal. No judge can in his right mind argue the opposite. Now in many pre-October 2012 posts, frightened motorists came looking for help AFTER having written and admitted their actions to the parking companies, thereby providing them with the head to hunt thus placing them exactly where they are now that POFA is in effect - yet still people advised "ignore", still they did, and the problem went away.

The fact that PE is trying its luck here and there makes no difference to the facts on the ground - and to ignore is still as likely as ever to bury the matter after the chain expires. Somebody wanting to sue, will sue regardless and in my case, it was precisely because I responded and the journey went from there. No date yet but I am awaiting local court papers.

Coupon-mad

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/do-you-have-court-hearing-with.html

That link should be of interest to you; I can recommend PP.