Unenforceable ParkingEye PCN

4consumerrights

Originally Posted by da_rule
I think we'll agree to disagree on that point. As they are making a claim for payment under the POFA, they are under an obligation to ensure that their correspondence is compliant with the Act. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the courts have a duty to look at fairness/equity, and as such a misleading Notice to Keeper would not be looked at as being fair. Also, as the matter is essentially a claim in contract, there is also a need that any enforcement of the penalty clauses is compliant with the original contract. If the letter is therefore misleading then it is not compliant and could be held to be introducing an unfair or misleading term under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA).

I would go one further and say that Da_rule may not be who (s)he says (s)he is - IMO he may be a troll after reading several of his/her postings on various threads.

For someone who claims to be a law graduate and doing the LPC - you fail to note that under civil contract law penalty clauses are unenforceable.- yet you keep spouting this on several threads - are you trying to implant this in readers' minds that private parking charges are akin to penalties?

You have posted on several OPs threads making comments and advice which is not accurate in my opinion. Informing one OP to name the driver when the PPC involved does not invoke keeper liability. Another thread you mention to include ANPR as an appeal point - after a windscreen ticket was given. And other comments regarding entrance signage. I think this OP is trying to deflect forum newbies from GPEOL at POPLA and to make mistakes.

It is strange that he did not post up his appeal first - and is attempting to claim the NtK is flawed using punctuation - co-incidence after recent court case loss for PE?

By the way - where are you doing your LPC?
Law graduates at LPC law are being trounced in court by PE with lay reps.

bob?_3-2

When other people come onto here looking for advice or claiming/acting stupid and then start arguing about that advice/legal points suspicions should always be raised about their ID's.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

bob? wrote: »

When other people come onto here looking for advice or claiming/acting stupid and then start arguing about that advice/legal points suspicions should always be raised about their ID's.

Yes you become accustomed to it.....

da_rule

4consumerrights wrote: »

I would go one further and say that Da_rule may not be who (s)he says (s)he is - IMO he may be a troll after reading several of his/her postings on various threads.

For someone who claims to be a law graduate and doing the LPC - you fail to note that under civil contract law penalty clauses are unenforceable.- yet you keep spouting this on several threads - are you trying to implant this in readers' minds that private parking charges are akin to penalties?

You have posted on several OPs threads making comments and advice which is not accurate in my opinion. Informing one OP to name the driver when the PPC involved does not invoke keeper liability. Another thread you mention to include ANPR as an appeal point - after a windscreen ticket was given. And other comments regarding entrance signage. I think this OP is trying to deflect forum newbies from GPEOL at POPLA and to make mistakes.

It is strange that he did not post up his appeal first - and is attempting to claim the NtK is flawed using punctuation - co-incidence after recent court case loss for PE?

By the way - where are you doing your LPC?
Law graduates at LPC law are being trounced in court by PE with lay reps.

Let me address some of the points, I did post my original appeal on here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4850039 seeing as you've been looking through my posts I thought you would have spotted that.

My claim that the NtK was flawed is not based around the punctuation (although it is very poor), it was based around simple non-compliance with the PoFA.

LPC Law is a law firm, as I'm sure you're aware, the LPC is a legal course required in order to practice as a solicitor (one of many routes to qualification). LPC Law appears to be a firm which works on quantity of work rather than quality, in a similar manner to personal injury solicitors. I don't know whether there has been some confusion between the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and LPC Law.

Regarding the thread involving ANPR, if you actual read the thread you will see that he received a NtK which had a picture of his vehicle and different time stamp, showing him leaving before the ticket was issued. So I would say ANPR calibration could be important.

Also, I never advised someone to identify the driver, I asked whether identifying the driver could be a route to go down as the poster had run out of time to appeal and this would restart the clock.

I have no problem with GPEOL, again if you had read my posts, I always say to appeal on the standard grounds (GPEOL, signage etc), but to also include as many extra points as possible to make as much work for the parking companies as possible - more work = less likely to bother defending.

I will hold my hands up for Penalty Clauses, what I meant was Liquidated Damages Clauses. I'm sure you are aware that these are perfectly legal, and infact the lead case in this matter (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)) is actually where the GPEOL test comes from. Any demands for payment which do not satisfy this test are penalties (which as you rightly say are not legal).

4consumerrights

Now it is my turn to address some of the points your raise below responses in blue:

da_rule wrote: »

Let me address some of the points, I did post my original appeal on here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4850039 seeing as you've been looking through my posts I thought you would have spotted that.

Naturally I read your initial first appeal to Parking Eye- however I was referring to the POPLA appeal you would have later submitted.

My claim that the NtK was flawed is not based around the punctuation (although it is very poor), it was based around simple non-compliance with the PoFA.

Punctuation was cited as a reason on the opening post of this thread and also in your original appeal to Parking Eye. In actual fact how the colons are used is very common in accounts and on invoices - thereby irrelevant and not an issue in this case.

Your assumption regarding non-compliance with POFA is also misguided and ill-informed as the sections you are referring to only related to keeper liabilty following a windscreen notice and not the section where ANPR is used. The wording seen on the first page is actually accurate and in compliance with POFA. Where ANPR is used the PPC must make representations to draw the matter to the driver's attention for payment.

The only discrepancy noticed is that the keeper is invited to pay the parking charge or name the driver for service - however this is probably worded somewhere on the reverse.

It is ridiculous also to state that there was no address should you wish to name the driver - obviously the communicable means stated would suffice - try arguing that at county court!

LPC Law is a law firm, as I'm sure you're aware, the LPC is a legal course required in order to practice as a solicitor (one of many routes to qualification). LPC Law appears to be a firm which works on quantity of work rather than quality, in a similar manner to personal injury solicitors. I don't know whether there has been some confusion between the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and LPC Law.

I am fully aware that the LPC (Legal Practice Course) is offered to post-grad law students as a precursor to practice as a solicitor and that LPC Law is a firm. Perhaps what you are NOT aware is that LPC Law take on graduates and offer them this course also!

Regarding the thread involving ANPR, if you actual read the thread you will see that he received a NtK which had a picture of his vehicle and different time stamp, showing him leaving before the ticket was issued. So I would say ANPR calibration could be important.

You have mentioned ANPR calibration on TWO threads - both of which are totally irrelevant as these were windscreen tickets - I suggest that you go back and read them again carefully. You will also note by the wording on the MET one that a photograph was taken of the vehicle where parked - ANPR only takes numberplates at the entry/exit of car parks.

Also, I never advised someone to identify the driver, I asked whether identifying the driver could be a route to go down as the poster had run out of time to appeal and this would restart the clock.

You have mentioned naming the driver twice on different threads now - both of which are totally inappropriate as the PPC involved in each case does not invoke keeper liability under POFA and can only pursue the driver if known.

I have no problem with GPEOL, again if you had read my posts, I always say to appeal on the standard grounds (GPEOL, signage etc), but to also include as many extra points as possible to make as much work for the parking companies as possible - more work = less likely to bother defending.

That's good to hear - have no problem with that then.


I will hold my hands up for Penalty Clauses, what I meant was Liquidated Damages Clauses. I'm sure you are aware that these are perfectly legal, and infact the lead case in this matter (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)) is actually where the GPEOL test comes from. Any demands for payment which do not satisfy this test are penalties (which as you rightly say are not legal).The forum are fully aware of the case you state above and in fact reference to it is made and others during the compilation of court defences.

It is also noted that you are making other remarks on threads which demonstrate clearly that you are still very naive regarding the issues surrounding POFA the PPCs and private parking charges.

Just because you have a law degree, I afraid does not make you an overnight expert in this field - nor in any other aspect of law for that matter. There are many regulars on here who know far more than you do in this respect. The private parking companies are constantly changing tactics and wording on their signage and notices and it is a case of keeping up with the game and adjusting.

Many forum regulars act as lay reps at court defending these cases or preparing defences for them; in fact some of the comments you made have directly contradicted their knowledge and experience.

None of the regulars also would be so presumptive in their opinions coming across as direct as some statements that you have made and this is an ever changing scene so a constant learning curve.

I'm sorry if this has seemed a little harsh - but there are many PPCs, two different trade bodies AOS memberships with their separate codes of practice and appeals , in addition to the dual system of obtaining keeper details, the basics of contract law- all of which requires an attention to detail at all times.