Excel Parking 'Goodwill Gesture'

bondy_lad

you must read coupon-mads sticky at top of page,how to get private parking tickets cancelled,,,scroll to post 2 by her and click on the peel centre thread ,the op was smjohnson,, (he/she won),similar story to yours,this will help you in your decision re the tenner,,as for me i would tell them ,,the where the sun dont shine story.

Guys_Dad

On current form, we are winning at POPLA on the pre-estimate point if an appeal is properly constructed.

Actually, you have a great super-version of that defence as they have said that their admin costs are £10.00 in their offer, so You stand an even better chance, unless their offer was "without prejudice".

They are also not great court-doers, so you are on pretty firm ground based on current experience.

However, POPLA cases are now stretching to November and it has been suggested by at least 1 or 2 regulars, from memory, that sooner or later that defence may cease to be accepted. Should that happen, there are others, but not as much of a silver bullet as that point.

When you are facing a charge of £100, even if that point evaporates, it is worth fighting as there is little to lose. But you are betting a tenner against that defence point still being around in 2 or 3 months' time and a POPLA £100 adjudication going against you, and Excel still not doing court.

I am not advising paying, let me get it straight. I am simply putting on the table the salient facts to enable you to weigh up the odds and finally make your choice.

zzzLazyDaisy

bondy_lad wrote: »

you must read coupon-mads sticky at top of page,how to get private parking tickets cancelled,,,scroll to post 2 by her and click on the peel centre thread ,the op was smjohnson,, (he/she won),similar story to yours,this will help you in your decision re the tenner,,as for me i would tell them ,,the where the sun dont shine story.

The advice to contact the landowner/retailer is good, but just pointing out that in the case it was a row of shops in Sheffield, not Peel Holdings.

D

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Guys dad I can't see that defence becoming invalid.
That would turn the whole thing into a farce

zzzLazyDaisy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

However, POPLA cases are now stretching to November and it has been suggested by at least 1 or 2 regulars, from memory, that sooner or later that defence may cease to be accepted. Should that happen, there are others, but not as much of a silver bullet as that point..

I can see why BPA and the PPCs would want that appeal point blocking.....

But I can't see how they could do that as it is the law. If they try to stop the assessors accepting genuine points of law that have been raised by motorists, the whole shaky sham facade of an 'independent appeal process' will come crashing down. That will leave the BPA and the PPCs wide open to self-regulation being removed and a genuinely independent appeals board being set up (since this was a condition of PoFA, unless I am mistaken?). Whatever happens I think they will avoid any action that is likely to result in the appeal process being taken out of their control altogether.

Daisy

PS - Note to the regulars - you have permission to shoot me down in flames if my belief in due process turns out to be without foundation.... :A

Guys_Dad

The problem is, Daisy, that some cases have gone to court and judges have found that the charges are not penalties or unreasonable. So it's not clear cut.

Regrettably, I have lost my links to a couple of cases that I had and only have this one from just down the road to me http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uploads/PDF/Yau-Judgement.pdf (paragraph 11)

The only other quick references I can point to are, I am ashamed to say, on the Parking Eye web site http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/News

All these show is that some judges take a different view as to what makes up a genuine estimate of loss. Not all are as enlightened as Judge McIlwaine.

The BPA actually tell the PPCs to include their operational costs, so it does seem to me that there is going to be a show down sooner or later.

But in the meantime, we should continue to play by the current POPLA decisions, but be cautious in thinking that this is set in stone for ever and a day.

zzzLazyDaisy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The problem is, Daisy, that some cases have gone to court and judges have found that the charges are not penalties or unreasonable. .

Yes I know. The problem is that often the cases are defended by litigants in person who do not understand the law and do not know how to present their case properly, and then get overwhelmed and out-manouvered by the PPCs solicitor in court. Also, pragmatically, no-one is ever going to spend thousands of pounds appealing a judgment for £175 or so, so the occasional rogue decision will never be challenged which means that judges have a fairly wide range of options open to them.

None of that changes the law on which 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' is based.

But my view is based more on the fact that POPLA is exists because of a smoke and mirrors pretence that it is 'independent'. If the BPA interfered with the POPLA process by openly stepping in and banning previously successful points of appeal, that would blow the whole 'independent' lie right out of the water.

But yes, I definitely agree with you when you say that "in the meantime, we should continue to play by the current POPLA decisions, but be cautious in thinking that this is set in stone for ever and a day".
D

Umkomaas

Whilst there are defeats the PPCs are taking at POPLA on pre-estimate of losses, in the grand scheme of things the numbers are probably infinitesimal compared to the numbers who meekly pay up without any challenge or fight. If you pardon the pun, it's a bit of a loss-leader for them in giving the appeals' process some degree of 'independence' and 'respectability'.

I'm sure the BPA is saying to PPCs in this context, 'Swallow and smile sweetly, there are bigger fish to fry. Don't risk bringing it all down around our heads chasing small change'.

While we get great satisfaction in seeing advised cases winning at POPLA, these are more akin to airgun pellets against the PPCs' armour rather than the rocket propelled grenades needed.

Guys_Dad

Many a mickle makes a muckle

Fergie76

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You have no case on mitigation. If you think about it, I can see you not entering any number at all, but I can't conceive why anyone would enter A1 knowing that this is as unique as an identical octuplet. You either knew you had to enter your car reg or you didn't. That would be the view a court would take, I contend.

So, mitigation gone west.

But you can win at POPLA using the current POPLA appeal points that you can see on the POPLA decisions sticky.

Pragmatically, and only you can answer this - Did your actions actually cause the PPC any admin? If so, then is £10 really outrageous?

How do you know what the OP was thinking at the time or what the court would think if it got that far?