BPA's prescribed charge

HO87

nigelbb wrote: »

The OFT recommendations (that the BPA Ltd ignored) makes very interesting reading. The OFT draw the analogy with the £12 that has been deemed acceptable for letters regarding a bank overdraft.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/2012/IAT-FOIA-135010.pdf

Nigel

Thank you for that link. I'd lost this document and had been casting around trying to track it down!

Big_Bad_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

It is true. Your appeal was that the charge was a penalty not that it was not a GPEOL. If you had argued that it was not a GPEOL your appeal would have been upheld. It's impossible for the PPCs to argue that a £100 charge is a GPEOL but more difficult for the appellant to prove that it is a penalty

IF there is a next time! At least I know! Cheers!

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

Nigel

Thank you for that link. I'd lost this document and had been casting around trying to track it down!

The OFT had moved the location of the file as the link that I had was dead but I Googled on the actual filename & found the new location. I have downloaded a copy as an extra precaution.

trisontana

I have just found another fatuous email from Steve Clark. This was after I asked if I could get the opinion of somebody from the BPA who did know the difference between costs and losses. As you see, I didn't succeed. Read and enjoy!

Dear Mr XXXXX

Thanks for your note which has been referred to me as someone who is ‘more conversant with the difference between "losses" and "costs" ‘
We contend that the genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by the parking operators should include those costs incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified – I know that we will disagree on this point. One thing we should agree on though is that if everyone paid to park where they should and didn’t park where they shouldn’t, there would be no need for these costs to be incurred by the operators and/or the landowners.
I am fully aware of the VCS vs Ibbotson case that you refer to but as I am sure you appreciate, the judgment in this case does not create precedent and we should let the Courts decide these matters on a case-by-case basis.
Finally I would contend that the ‘parking contract’ is offered on the site signage and the contractual terms including any charge for breach of the ‘parking contract’ are clearly outlined. I find it somewhat incongruous that a motorist complains about a term/condition that they don’t like, after they have breached the ‘parking contract’. If they don’t like the terms and conditions why accept them by staying at the location in the first place.
Kind regards
Steve Clark
Head of Operational Services

Big_Bad_Dad

I am fully aware of the VCS vs Ibbotson case that you refer to but as I am sure you appreciate, the judgment in this case does not create precedent ...

Wrong Mr Clark, it is more than a precedent, it is a solid incontrovertible fact. No incident no matter how bad in your eyes (if you are reading) can attribute expenses already paid by the operator to your victim. Your nexus sues him over a so-called "breach" and you in turn need to justify your losses flowing from the breach. In short, if you can prove the breach caused you to recruit a few temps to go erect a few signs purely because of the incident then you might have a starting point; but to bill the victim for already erected signs and cameras which if will have served your purpose should have already been maintained prior to the incident is not "losses". As the judge pointed out, that doesn't pertain to the incident and is in any case tax deductible. Nice try sir, but the public is waking up to you.

If Steve Clark would like to perform a good deed for which he will be remembered for the good, may I suggest he throw himself from Clifton Suspension Bridge - and may he go head first for his own benefit, that way it will be quicker.

Big_Bad_Dad

Perhaps what Clarkey the cretin can answer us is this:

How does an incident where Parking Eye propel themselves into action cause them to incur expenses of "circa £53"? The figleaf fees for keeper details, paper and stamp, etc. don't arrive at £3 - how can they be so sure even if running costs could be added that the portion of relevant signage and camera maintenance could blast their expenses up to £53 or £55? And even then, where is the justification for an "upper fee" after two weeks? And what on earth can even scrape £100? By taking the tarmac with them when they leave?

Big_Bad_Dad

Looking at it further, a PPC requires the signs and cameras in the first place before it is possible a citizen breaches the terms. Paradoxically, without such articles, there can be no contract in the first place. As such, they have to pay for the pieces first. So by claiming running costs as "damages" means that they are attempting to get their money back on their investments from their victims. The very fact that they are a profit-making business means that they have already broken even on initial expenses. So the question, Clarkey, remains where is the damages concerning your signage, cameras and uniforms?

Computersaysno

BBD....Clarkey doesn't answer rants on here.

HO87

Computersaysno wrote: »

BBD....Clarkey doesn't answer rants on here.

Indeed he doesn't - or at least we assume he doesn't. That said he will almost certainly read that we don't think he does.

trisontana

The BPA ltd did put up a rep on here a couple of years ago, but they made such a hash of their answers, and were rightly savaged on here, that they disappeared never to be seen again.

EDIT.

Here is that thread, it's pre-POFA, so some of the information is out of date, but it does show that the BPA Ltd has no idea of the actual law regarding private parking tickets:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1956899