Private Space - Lease Terms Interpretation

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I've wondered about creating another contract by displaying a prominent notice on your car along the lines of:

This car is parked on land leased by the keeper. You must not invoice or penalise the keeper or driver for parking here. If you do wish to raise invoices, the keeper will charge a handling fee of £100 per notice received payable within 7 days. There is no early settlement discount.

Or alternatively,

This car is parked on a space leased by the keeper of this vehicle. Any parking fees charged on this car must therefore be an attempt to gain money under false pretences which is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Any individual placing a ticket or responsible for reporting this car or processing the ticket is complicit and when identified will be reported to the police.

Coupon-mad

I really would suggest the OP uses the template in the NEWBIES thread, then a strong POPLA appeal like the one used by SMarg (who just won at POPLA v UKCPM). The only thing to watch for is not to use a generic POPLA appeal because UKCPM signs are a bit different so you have to make the 'it's really in fact a breach of contract, and there's no GPEOL' angle clearer to the Assessor than in most cases.

And stop focussing on the issue that's not going to make any difference at POPLA stage - this whole thread so far is talking about an aspect that POPLA won't even consider. It's a point that will merely be an aside in your POPLA appeal.

The_Deep

And stop focussing on the issue that's not going to make any difference at POPLA stage - this whole thread so far is talking about an aspect that POPLA won't even consider. It's a point that will merely be an aside in your POPLA appeal.


No no no no no. Popla is the least of OP's problems, he needs to deal with the underlying problem, PPCs hired to deal with problem parking creating problems for those whom they should be protecting.

Costing a PPC few pounds at Popla is like treating a cancer with an headache powder. Forget Popla, Popla is an irrelevance where such matters are concerned. These PPCs may well be committing a criminal offence under The Landlord and Tenant Act.

If you keep getting people to appeal, which simply gets them under loss, or inadequate signage, (which have nothing to do with property rights), the companies will continue to chance their arm. You will do far more to drive PPCs out of business by getting this thrashed out in court.

bod1467

OP needs to do both. Get this immediate issue settled (POPLA) and get the PPC sorted.

The_Deep

But he cannot do both, that is my point. If he gets the pcn cancelled by Popla on the basis that the amount does not equate to losses, the question of infringement of his leasehold rights will never be addressed, not by Popla, not by a court, Popla kills it dead.

Let's look at this dispassionately, the PPC is trying to charge him for breaching a contract which does not and cannot exist. In so doing they may be committing a criminal offence. They would be mad to take this in front of a judge.

He needs to ignore and hope that he will be taken to court, where a judge can rule on the illegality of these invoices, and perhaps open up a can of worms for pps.

Hot_Bring

The_Deep wrote: »

But he cannot do both, that is my point. If he gets the pcn cancelled by Popla on the basis that the amount does not equate to losses, the question of infringement of his leasehold rights will never be addressed, not by Popla, not by a court, Popla kills it dead.

Let's look at this dispassionately, the PPC is trying to charge him for breaching a contract which does not and cannot exist. In so doing they may be committing a criminal offence. They would be mad to take this in front of a judge.

He needs to ignore and hope that he will be taken to court, where a judge can rule on the illegality of these invoices, and perhaps open up a can of worms for pps.

Small Claims Court doesn't set precedence so it's rather pointless being bloody minded for the sake of it. The OP needs to get it cancelled via POPLA and then bug the hell out of the MA / landowner.

The_Deep

Small Claims Court doesn't set precedence so it's rather pointless being bloody minded for the sake of it.

No they don't, but judges talk to each other, they blog, word gets around. Cases are constantly being drawn to their attention, Ibbotson, Gollum, Shelley, some may ignore, some may not.

As for being bloody minded, isn't that the point of this forum? To complain, (at the drop of a hat), to shops, managing agents, DVLA, BPA, ICO,SRA, Trading Standards etc.

I do not see why so many here faff around with Popla when, with a bit of "bloody mindedness" they can do real damage.

The_Deep

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I've wondered about creating another contract by displaying a prominent notice on your car along the lines of:

This car is parked on land leased by the keeper. You must not invoice or penalise the keeper or driver for parking here. If you do wish to raise invoices, the keeper will charge a handling fee of £100 per notice received payable within 7 days. There is no early settlement discount.

Or alternatively,

This car is parked on a space leased by the keeper of this vehicle. Any parking fees charged on this car must therefore be an attempt to gain money under false pretences which is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Any individual placing a ticket or responsible for reporting this car or processing the ticket is complicit and when identified will be reported to the police.

I do not see why (i) should not work, the second is somewhat faceable, the police will run a mile rather than deal with a PPC, they are almost as toxic as travellers in their eyes.

Hot_Bring

The_Deep wrote: »

Small Claims Court doesn't set precedence so it's rather pointless being bloody minded for the sake of it.

No they don't, but judges talk to each other, they blog, word gets around. Cases are constantly being drawn to their attention, Ibbotson, Gollum, Shelley, some may ignore, some may not.

As for being bloody minded, isn't that the point of this forum? To complain, (at the drop of a hat), to shops, managing agents, DVLA, BPA, ICO,SRA, Trading Standards etc.

I do not see why so many here faff around with Popla when, with a bit of "bloody mindedness" they can do real damage.

Most people that post here are just after getting rid of the charge in the quickest and easiest way. We shouldn't use this group as a way of fighting our own battles against PPCs.

Personally I'm more than prepared to take on PPCs face to face in court etc but many people aren't. Leave the direct action to those that can do it - such as Parking Prankster, KIL, Bargepole, Coupon Mad etc.

EDIT - always forget - add 4ConsumerRights !!!!

The_Deep

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Most people that post here are just after getting rid of the charge in the quickest and easiest way. We shouldn't use this group as a way of fighting our own battles against PPCs.

Yes, I am aware of that. However "most people" come on here having overstayed in a free car park, not read the signs, or parked where they should not have. In most cases they brought their situation upon themselves

I am not concerned with them, I am concerned with the "few people", landlords and tenants, who, through no fault of their own, are being harassed by PPCs, often introduced by managing agents without consultation.

I am not fighting "my own battles", I do not have any properties affected by these pests. I am fighting for landlords and their tenants who do, they deserve our best advice just as much as those with far less respect for the rights of landowners, and I am not sure that telling them how to win a Popla appeal on a technicality is best advice..