Parking Fine in Boston

Umkomaas

I think this is a great combined forum/motorist success story! Not that savoury for the PPC though. :cool:

Group hug anyone? :rotfl:

HO87

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think this is a great combined forum/motorist success story! Not that savoury for the PPC though. :cool:

Group hug anyone? :rotfl:

Was the pun intended?

Napier Parking is owned and run by the de Savary family.

This is particularly interesting given that Napier have been pretty shrewd - and a whole lot shrewder than the average PPC. Firstly, they or an allied company own the vast majority of the car parks they operate on - alleviating them of the need to prove standing. Secondly they have always made it clear that their PCN's represent a contractual charge - not damages in respect of a breach of contract thus letting themselves out of the necessity to prove GPEOL.

Umkomaas

HO87 wrote: »

Was the pun intended?

Napier Parking is owned and run by the de Savary family.

This is particularly interesting given that Napier have been pretty shrewd - and a whole lot shrewder than the average PPC. Firstly, they or an allied company own the vast majority of the car parks they operate on - alleviating them of the need to prove standing. Secondly they have always made it clear that their PCN's represent a contractual charge - not damages in respect of a breach of contract thus letting themselves out of the necessity to prove GPEOL.

Keep up HO, keep up!

Surely not too subtle for you?

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

Was the pun intended?

Napier Parking is owned and run by the de Savary family.

This is particularly interesting given that Napier have been pretty shrewd - and a whole lot shrewder than the average PPC. Firstly, they or an allied company own the vast majority of the car parks they operate on - alleviating them of the need to prove standing. Secondly they have always made it clear that their PCN's represent a contractual charge - not damages in respect of a breach of contract thus letting themselves out of the necessity to prove GPEOL.

The T&Cs for this car park that I linked to in #12 very definitely claim that the charge is for a breach of contract.

HO87

nigelbb wrote: »

The T&Cs for this car park that I linked to in #12 very definitely claim that the charge is for a breach of contract.

Thanks NB

Rookie error on my part. I failed to read all the posts. However, it is interesting to note that these t's & c's differ from those in force at others of their locations - or have they switched to the far more common liquidated damages?

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

Thanks NB

Rookie error on my part. I failed to read all the posts. However, it is interesting to note that these t's & c's differ from those in force at others of their locations - or have they switched to the far more common liquidated damages?

I just took a look at the T&Cs for various of their car parks (all on line - Thank you Napier) http://www.napierparking.co.uk/napier-car-parks/terms/ & they all have this definition:-

(b) “Fixed Charge Notice” is the document by which we notify you of the additional charges which the driver of a vehicle has incurred as a result of any breach of these Terms and Conditions of Parking. This has the same meaning as a Parking Charge Notice [“PCN”] for the purpose of an appeal to POPLA.

TBH I didn't think that Napier ever tried to claim an 'agreed charge' as while the PPC usual perversion of contract law in claiming liquidated damages for breach of contract is on dodgy legal ground trying to claim an agreed charge is on exceedingly dodgy grounds. Which is why most PPCs don't even try it as it's nonsense to try & argue that any motorist would agree to pay £100 for the privilege of parking outside a marked bay or obstructing fire exit. So-called agreed charges are always dressed up penalties but of course so are liquidated damages for breach of contract for parking.