PCN Counterclaim

X-man

Having recently researched and appealed a PCN using some of the wording found in templates on this website (thankyou MSE members!), I received a rejection letter from the PPC together with a POPLA verification code.

I have set out my case to POPLA (again, using templates from this site) and am currently awaiting their decision. I fully expect that POPLA will allow my appeal based on GPEOL, as this seems to be the most popular and successful appeal point at present.

My initial response to the PPC included the paragraph;

"If you do reject the challenge and insist on taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail."

Assuming that POPLA allow my appeal, I intend to issue the PPC with my own PCN (Personal Charge Notice) together with a breakdown of my costs for preparing the case for POPLA under cover of letter.

Before I go down this route, has anybody successfully done this before or can someone offer further advice?

I'm not too concerned about getting reimbursed but would really like to 'stick one up em!' for all the hassle I've gone to.....

bod1467

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=personal+costs+notification

spikyone

As I've posted elsewhere, I doubt that non-specific claims would be successful. PE are perfectly entitled to reject your appeal so that it goes to Popla. They aren't acting unreasonably as they're following a fair procedure, even if they're wrong to reject your appeal. Had you phrased it in terms of pointing out that your appeal was solely on GPEOL, and that PE have already lost at Popla enough times to know they were wasting your time, and you'd then won on GPEOL, then you may have a case.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I suspect that the case bod mentions is doomed to failure in court - assuming PE turn up!

bod1467

There are TWO cases in the link I gave ... one of them has already been WON. (Or more accurately, the PPC caved prior to court).

BenefitMaster

X-man wrote: »

My initial response to the PPC included the paragraph;

"If you do reject the challenge and insist on taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail."

I recognise that working... :T

Assuming that POPLA allow my appeal, I intend to issue the PPC with my own PCN (Personal Charge Notice) together with a breakdown of my costs for preparing the case for POPLA under cover of letter.

Before I go down this route, has anybody successfully done this before or can someone offer further advice?]

This process is currently occurring, and it will be a test case. Watch Pranky's blog...

spikyone

The motorist who won was a blue badge holder who was displaying his badge at the time of the incident. The PPC probably considered themselves lucky not to be sued for harassment and breaching the Equality Act!

The pending case, and that of the OP, don't feature any clearly unreasonable behaviour on the part of the PPC.

BenefitMaster

spikyone wrote: »

The motorist who won was a blue badge holder who was displaying his badge at the time of the incident. The PPC probably considered themselves lucky not to be sued for harassment and breaching the Equality Act!

The pending case, and that of the OP, don't feature any clearly unreasonable behaviour on the part of the PPC.

The pending case involve unlawful issue of PCN's against the keeper of a vehicle, where the land in question was not Relevant Land.

That's pretty unlawful...

spikyone

Virtually every PPC ticket is unlawful. But it doesn't give you the right to claim costs if you (the motorist) choose to use the Independent Appeals Service.

To draw a parallel with PPI reclaiming, many banks rejected claims that were upheld by the FSA. It didn't entitle the claimants to reclaim the costs of their claim, only the PPI they had paid (plus interest).

da_rule

spikyone wrote: »

Virtually every PPC ticket is unlawful. But it doesn't give you the right to claim costs if you (the motorist) choose to use the Independent Appeals Service.

To draw a parallel with PPI reclaiming, many banks rejected claims that were upheld by the FSA. It didn't entitle the claimants to reclaim the costs of their claim, only the PPI they had paid (plus interest).

The argument comes where you have included a 'charging clause' in your appeal that sets out that they are responsible for your costs if they unjustly reject your appeal.

If you then win your appeal (at POPLA/IAS) on substantially the same areas as your appeal to the parking company then this should be evidence that they unjustly rejected the appeal. It could then be argued that, by rejecting the appeal, the parking company has, by its actions, consented to the term that has been put into the appeal.

It's going to need a test case, but when a parking company has made someone incur costs because of their unreasonable/unjust actions (not just in issuing the PCN but also by rejecting a completely legitimate appeal) then they should be liable.

spikyone

da_rule wrote: »

The argument comes where you have included a 'charging clause' in your appeal that sets out that they are responsible for your costs if they unjustly reject your appeal.

If you then win your appeal (at POPLA/IAS) on substantially the same areas as your appeal to the parking company then this should be evidence that they unjustly rejected the appeal. It could then be argued that, by rejecting the appeal, the parking company has, by its actions, consented to the term that has been put into the appeal.

No. This is the same bull that the PPCs rely upon - they can't agree or consent to your charging clause simply because they read your letter or fail to cancel your ticket, because you have no lawful right to impose charges on them willy-nilly in the same way that they have no right to impose charges on you. The example you give is the dictionary definition of an unfair term - it's punitive, one-sided, and bordering on blackmail.

da_rule wrote: »

It's going to need a test case, but when a parking company has made someone incur costs because of their unreasonable/unjust actions (not just in issuing the PCN but also by rejecting a completely legitimate appeal) then they should be liable.

The whole point of POPLA is that it is an arbitration service designed to 'settle' disputes. It is not necessarily unreasonable or unjust for a PPC to reject your appeal, simply because you later win at arbitration. They think they're right, you think you're right - it's the whole point of an arbitration service. I can't think of a single arbitration service (outside of the court system) where an appellant would be able to claim their costs simply because their position was upheld. The use of an independent appeals service, set up for precisely that purpose, is not unreasonable or unjust by any measure.

This is entirely different to the situation I mentioned, where (for example) Parking Eye have lost well over 100 cases at POPLA (at 100%) where GPEOL was the reason for appeal. They therefore know that they are wasting everyone's time taking it to POPLA provided that you make it clear beforehand that it is your one and only reason for appeal, and that they fail to properly rebut the issue when rejecting your initial appeal. In that case, they are causing you to incur unnecessary costs because it's a foregone conclusion.

I'm not against putting one over the parking companies - quite the opposite - but we need to pick our battles and losing a fight we pick with a PPC, if it went to court, would do the cause substantial harm. As I said, I fear the ongoing case on Parking Prankster's blog will end up being that case, particularly since none of the cases that PPCs have taken to court have resulted in anything like £250 of costs being awarded to the motorist.

X-man

spikyone wrote: »

The whole point of POPLA is that it is an arbitration service designed to 'settle' disputes. It is not necessarily unreasonable or unjust for a PPC to reject your appeal, simply because you later win at arbitration. They think they're right, you think you're right - it's the whole point of an arbitration service. I can't think of a single arbitration service (outside of the court system) where an appellant would be able to claim their costs simply because their position was upheld. The use of an independent appeals service, set up for precisely that purpose, is not unreasonable or unjust by any measure.

I understand what you're saying but if POPLA find in the PPCs favour, I should theoretically pay the penalty. At present, the PPC have nothing to lose by going to POPLA. I stand to lose £120.

By issuing the PPC with a letter containing terms and conditions, which are deemed to be accepted by them in continuing to pursue me, I have attempted to redress the balance so both I and the PPC have an equal interest dependent on the decision and eventual outcome of POPLA.

I believe my pre-estimate of loss is far more genuine than theirs could ever be and unlike the PPC, I can actually demonstrate that they have read my terms and conditions. I didn’t cause them any loss by stopping on the road but they have caused me loss by refusing to cancel the PCN and forcing me to spend even more time appealing their charge.

They probably won't pay my invoice, just as I don't intend to pay theirs but if I were to pursue them as vigorously as they are pursuing me, I believe my case would be stronger.......