Firemanbill's Advice - A Possible troll, please treat his advice with extreme caution

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I wouldnt normally post this up as a new topic but feel i must as i dont wish anyone to have anything come back to bite them

If he advises you ignore and that the advice that is saying dont ignore but appeal is coming from parking company trolls then he is complete and utterly WRONG.

By ignoring you are risking someone ending up with a claim in the county court, costs and maybe a ccj, for up to 6 years in England & Wales.

I dont think we can risk giving people poor advice and i know most of you dont advise ignore in most cases now (conditions apply)

POPLA is a useful and very winable tool. In the last 12 months i have won 99% all popla appeals i have either done myself or helping other people. In fact my only loss was the very first we tried out!

If people wish to give advice that could put someone at risk of a claim then can i suggest you pay into an escrow service so it doesnt end up costing them now we know how the land lies

Firemanbill

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

I wouldnt normally post this up as a new topic but feel i must as i dont wish anyone to have anything come back to bite them

If he advises you ignore and that the advice that is saying dont ignore but appeal is coming from parking company trolls then he is complete and utterly WRONG.

By ignoring you are risking someone ending up with a claim in the county court, costs and maybe a ccj, for up to 6 years in England & Wales.

I dont think we can risk giving people poor advice and i know most of you dont advise ignore in most cases now (conditions apply)

POPLA is a useful and very winable tool. In the last 12 months i have won 99% all popla appeals i have either done myself or helping other people. In fact my only loss was the very first we tried out!

If people wish to give advice that could put someone at risk of a claim then can i suggest you pay into an escrow service so it doesnt end up costing them now we know how the land lies

Hey northern guy, I ignored and they went away. I never said it would work in all cases and if anyone cares to search out my original posts they'll see that what I did was articulate a solid defence, take some photos to support it, prepare for the worst - understanding the costs involved should I lose (unlikely) - and then wait. I still think this is sound advice. All this rubbish about pandering to the POOPLA process is nonsense - it's funded by the people issuing the unwarranted demands. Which bit of that don't you get? Does the Star Chamber ring any bells with you? Kangaroo courts?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

The Popla process is not rubbish at all
While it might not be perfect and there are some issues, it works for us very well on here and on mse, we have got countless wins, it stops people from being taken to court and its one in the eye for the parking company.

Are you going to put your money where your mouth is then and back people who take your advice, dont use POPLA and loose at court?

Firemanbill

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

The Popla process is not rubbish at all
While it might not be perfect and there are some issues, it works for us very well on here and on mse, we have got countless wins, it stops people from being taken to court and its one in the eye for the parking company.

Are you going to put your money where your mouth is then and back people who take your advice, dont use POPLA and loose at court?

You'll have to do better than that to convince the people of this country that you are not a spy.

Everyone reading this should understand the following: even if it goes all the way to county court, the maximum cost of an unsuccessful defence is the original (alleged) loss plus costs of maybe £65, making a total, say, of £200. Unless you are really poor (and if you are that poor, how on earth did you finance a car in the first place?) this is within most budgets. Ergo, it's well worth defending, especially when you know they can't win. Threats about credit? Easy, just don't buy something you can't afford.

"One in the eye" for the parking company by winning POOPLA? Have another rusk.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Firemanbill wrote: »

You'll have to do better than that to convince the people of this country that you are not a spy.

Everyone reading this should understand the following: even if it goes all the way to county court, the maximum cost of an unsuccessful defence is the original (alleged) loss plus costs of maybe £65, making a total, say, of £200. Unless you are really poor (and if you are that poor, how on earth did you finance a car in the first place?) this is within most budgets. Ergo, it's well worth defending, especially when you know they can't win. Threats about credit? Easy, just don't buy something you can't afford.

"One in the eye" for the parking company by winning POOPLA? Have another rusk.

Who exactly do you think i need to convince?

Its fairly obvious you Post over on CAG, may i suggest you keep your poor advice to that site (which in parts does give good advice), but the parking section doesnt on the whole give good advice, and thankfully it doesnt have that many people posting on there now , so less miss informed people (Some posters however do give out good info so sorry if anyone reading is one of them)

Edit.

You post like a someone who goes by the username of scouse magic, very similar rantings

Firemanbill

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Who exactly do you think i need to convince?

Its fairly obvious you Post over on CAG, may i suggest you keep your poor advice to that site (which in parts does give good advice), but the parking section doesnt on the whole give good advice, and thankfully it doesnt have that many people posting on there now , so less miss informed people (Some posters however do give out good info so sorry if anyone reading is one of them)

Edit.

You post like a someone who goes by the username of scouse magic, very similar rantings

Not guilty to the charge of posting on CAG. I don't even know what that means.

As to ignoring? It's not "poor advice" at all unless you happen to work for one of the clampers - sorry that should have said car parking companies. Or are you just one of the people producing the tickets?

Coupon-mad

Firemanbill your advice is wrong and will confuse newbies. :mad:

What part of us winning 100% of the time at POPLA on ALL cases helped in the last six months, do you have a problem with? Especially as each appeal costs a PPC well over £30 and the BPA Ltd even more!

Firemanbill

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Firemanbill your advice is wrong and will confuse newbies. :mad:

What part of us winning 100% of the time at POPLA on ALL cases helped in the last six months, do you have a problem with? Especially as each appeal costs a PPC well over £30 and the BPA Ltd even more!

Oh, I see what you are saying. No problem at all. What we need to see is PROOF.

Care to provide some?

Umkomaas

And why take any risk on this going to court (50:50 chance of success:loss), with the potential of (FB's contention) a £200 loss, when a win at POPLA (100% success rate here) can be virtually guaranteed, ergo cost to motorist - £zilch, £zero, £nada, £SFA.

And ......... the work of developing a winning POPLA appeal is far less onerous for a totally inexperienced (and inevitably worried) individual than developing a solid defence for court appearance.

How's Pontypandy tonight FiremanSam?

Coupon-mad

Firemanbill wrote: »

Oh, I see what you are saying. No problem at all. What we need to see is PROOF.

Care to provide some?

Ummm...the 'POPLA decisions' sticky at the top, that's why it's there...to inform newbies.

Firemanbill

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Ummm...the 'POPLA decisions' sticky at the top, that's why it's there...to inform newbies.

Oh, I see, you mean like this one which is the first on the link you posted:

Decision:Refused

Assessor:Shona Watson

Date: 21 December 2012

Reported:

Successful Grounds: None

PPC: UKCPS



PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport andEnvironment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
21 December 2012
Reference: 8763052662
always quote in any communication with POPLA
BASFORDLAD (Appellant)
-v-
UKCPS Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 845662 arising out of thepresence at Alma Leisure Park on 26 October 2012, of a vehicle with registrationmark XX NN XXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that theappeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 12.07 on 26 October 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge noticebecause the vehicle with registration mark XX NN XXX was parked in a disabledbay but the Operator's employee could not see a valid disabled badge ondisplay. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle. TheAppellant does not appear to dispute this.
The Operator's case is that the terms and conditions for parking are displayedon the site, and state that vehicles displaying a valid disabled badge may parkin a disabled bay. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also statethat a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that the car park useragrees to a parking charge notice being issued. Photographs have also beenenclosed showing that the terms and conditions are visible in various areas ofthe car park. These are dated 26 November 2012, a month after the parkingcharge notice was issued, however the Appellant does not appear to dispute thatthere were signs on 26 October 2012 or that he did not know the requirement toshow a disabled badge when parking in a disabled bay.
The Operator submits that the Appellant parked in a disabled bay withoutdisplaying a valid disabled badge. In the case summary the Operator refers tothe copy of the parking charge notice, however it was not submitted with theirevidence. Nevertheless, it does appear to be agreed (or at least not disputed)that the parking charge notice was issued to the vehicle in the car park of theAlma Leisure Park in Chesterfield.
The Appellant made representations but does not offer any submissions on thefacts of the appeal, and neither party has enclosed the representations sent tothe Operator.
The Operator states that photographs taken by the employee show that a disabledbadge was not visible. This is accepted, as it appears that the vehicle isclearly parked in a disabled bay without a disabled badge on display.
Although the Appellant does not make any factual submissions whatsoever, hedoes make various legal submissions. One such submission is that the parkingcharge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that the Operator has notactually suffered any loss on this occasion. The Operator's response to thiswas that there was enclosed a costs sheet to show the calculation of thegenuine pre-estimate of loss, however there was none attached to theirsubmission. For the reasons set out below this is not relevant.

A further point made by the Appellant in relation to whether the parking chargeis a genuine pre-estimate of loss is that the charge is actually a penalty. TheOperator submits that, a penalty has been defined in the courts as a sum thatis in excess of the damage caused by non-performance of an obligation under theterms of a contract.
The Operator submits that in any case, the charge is not a genuine preestimateof loss because it is an invoice that the Appellant agreed to pay, for the useof a disabled space in which the vehicle was parked without a disabled badge.
Another statement by the Appellant is that if the parking charge amounts to agenuine pre-estimate of loss, the amount of the loss should not change from £60for the first 14 days and rise to £100 thereafter. The Operator responded thatthe genuine pre-estimate of loss is £100, however that there is a discount ifthe charge is paid within the first 14 days.
In addition, the Appellant states that if the parking charge is a genuinepreestimate of loss, the amount should vary for different breaches of the termsand conditions, for example parking over a white line or overstaying. TheOperator does not respond to this point.
The legal submissions of the Appellant set out above are not accepted. TheAppellant parked the vehicle in the car park, thereby agreeing to thecontractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. These included thecondition that vehicles may only park in a disabled bay if a valid disabledbadge was displayed.
Another term of the contract was that if the vehicle was parked withoutcomplying with the conditions of the contract, the motorist agreed to pay aparking charge of £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days). The submissions Ibelieve the Operator is trying to make is not that the Appellant has breachedthe contract giving rise to damages, as the Appellant appears to believe, butthat the Operator is seeking to enforce the contract. This is because theOperator is seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as aterm of the contract by parking his vehicle at Alma Leisure Park. The contractcannot now in effect be renegotiated.
The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach,either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach andwould need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was a genuinepre-estimate of loss.

The Appellant mentions the equitable principle that "one must come toequity with clean hands", and that the Operator is acting dishonestly asthey cannot legally recover the parking charge so therefore does not have"clean hands". However the law of equity is not relevant to theappeal and therefore this has been disregarded.
Finally, the Appellant quotes Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC [2012] UKUT129 (TCC), stating that Operators cannot create contracts with motorists ifthey do not own or have any proprietary interest in the land. The Operatorsubmits that the authority produced shows that the occupier of the car park hasgiven them the power to manage the car park. In addition, the Operator submitsthat the signs stating that motorists who park are entering into a contractwith the Operator show that a valid contract was created between the Operatorand the Appellant. I am inclined to disagree, and instead following thereasoning applied in VCS v HMRC, that the Operator cannot offer the right topark as it has already been offered by the occupier, in this case as use of thecar park is free. However the Operator acts as an agent for the occupier of theland, and a valid contract was created although it is between the Appellant andthe occupier. Therefore in attempting to recover the parking charge in thiscase, the Operator is acting on behalf of the occupier as permitted by theauthority, and does not need to show a proprietary interest.
The Appellant further submits that under the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999, parking charges are unfair terms as the contracts are notindividually negotiated and causes significant imbalance in the relations ofthe parties, to the motorist’s detriment. However as the terms and conditionsof the contract are clearly displayed and the Appellant is therefore deemed tohave been aware of the terms, if the Appellant did not agree he would have hadthe option to park elsewhere. Therefore the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999 are not relevant on this occasion.
The Appellant not having disputed or referred to the facts in any way, I mustfind as a fact that, at the material time, a valid disabled badge was requiredto be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible. This was a breach of theterms and conditions of parking.
Accordingly, on this particular occasion, the appeal must be refused.

REFUSED - everyone geddit?