GPEOL - Just a matter of time?

Aaron_Aadvark

So how much does it cost the PPC if the motorist receives a windscreen ticket and pays up immediately?

Not £45-60 as typically charged!

spacey2012

Think you are getting bamboozled by jargon.
If I charge everyone £75 who steps on a crack in the paving flags of my private path and employ dozens of people to write nasty letters.
Have the people really lost me £75 because I employ people to write to them begging money or did I cause the loss myself.
Judges tend to agree, there is no loss other than what they invented.

X-man

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

That will be vcs/ excel parking. I know that one like the back of my hand lol

What I can't understand is why they even bother going through the motions of submitting an evidence pack to POPLA when they know they will fail on their generic GPEOL statement, as they have numerous times before....

If I were the PPC, I'd look at the appeal wording and if it mentions 'Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss' I wouldn't waste any more time on it and let POPLA uphold the appeal based on PPC not submitting an evidence pack.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

X-man wrote: »

What I can't understand is why they even bother going through the motions of submitting an evidence pack to POPLA when they know they will fail on their generic GPEOL statement, as they have numerous times before....

If I were the PPC, I'd look at the appeal wording and if it mentions 'Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss' I wouldn't waste any more time on it and let POPLA uphold the appeal based on PPC not submitting an evidence pack.

Hence what PE are doing at the moment

Hot_Bring

Half_way wrote: »

why that amount? £5, £10,£20 or more ( or less) if its not a true pre estimate of loss then its a no go.
How would you quantify the loss?
How could a business operate and make a profit if its income is based on recovering its losses and putting it back to the situation it was in before hand.

I was being generous. So someone breaks the T&Cs, likely losses would include :

> DVLA charge £2.50
> Cost of windscreen ticket ( if used ), say a couple of quid
> Cost of writing to the RK, even if we use the banking worlds argument that a letter costs £10-£15 we're around £20

There IS a loss but only to the operator not the landowner ( unless the PPC pass on the costs ). I suspect if PPCs lowered their charges to £20 then the courts would look more favorably at them.

nigelbb

Hot_Bring wrote: »

I was being generous. So someone breaks the T&Cs, likely losses would include :

> DVLA charge £2.50
> Cost of windscreen ticket ( if used ), say a couple of quid
> Cost of writing to the RK, even if we use the banking worlds argument that a letter costs £10-£15 we're around £20

There IS a loss but only to the operator not the landowner ( unless the PPC pass on the costs ). I suspect if PPCs lowered their charges to £20 then the courts would look more favorably at them.

These losses can only apply to a pay car park where there is an initial loss from non payment. In a free car park there is no initial loss so the PPC cannot claim further losses incurred in chasing a loss of zero.

In a free car park there can never be a contract for parking as there is no consideration. A free car park normally allows parking under licence with the permission of the landowner as an incentive to shop just as they provide other facilities like toilets or free WiFi. If the conditions that they apply to that licence are breached then the motorist becomes a trespasser but the remedy then is for the landowner to take the trespasser to court not a 3rd party PPC.

bod1467

nigelbb wrote: »

then the motorist becomes a trespasser but the remedy then is for the landowner to take the trespasser to court not a 3rd party PPC.

Unless the landowner contract with the PPC confers that right?

nigelbb

nigelbb wrote: »

then the motorist becomes a trespasser but the remedy then is for the landowner to take the trespasser to court not a 3rd party PPC.

bod1467 wrote: »

Unless the landowner contract with the PPC confers that right?

They cannot confer that right. Trespass is the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". Only the person actually in possession of the land (landowner, leaseholder or tenant) can be wronged & thus is able to sue. A 3rd party PPC or management agent is not able to sue for trespass as they do not have possession of the land.

Custard_Pie

Hellfire. wrote: »

Having just received the PPCs evidence pack as part of a POPLA appeal, I'm wondering if this particular GPEOL statement contains an actual genuine pre-estimate of loss

Surely, it's just a matter of time before PPCs do manage to establish a valid GPEOL? After all, they seem to get plenty of chances to amend and adapt it for POPLA purposes..........

With everything at stake, do you not think that they would have come up with a genuine pre-estimate of loss by now, given the months they have had to do so and the number of different PPCs involved?

The fact is that it's either a trespass or a penalty against breach of contract.

Trespass has two financial remedies. One is for damage caused to the land or property on it due to trespassing. The second is for loss of earnings, takings, etc, by denying someone else or the landowner access to the land, or part of it, by trespassing.

For contract, there has to be clear evidence that the driver knew that they were entering into a contract and agreed to accept the terms of the contract. Damages need to be in proportion to the breach of the contract (Unfair Contract Terms Act) and the receipient needs to be VAT on any monies received.

Either way, anyone taking action to invoice and collect monies must have clear written authority to do so from the landowner.

Just because PPC try, does not mean that a genuine pre-estimatre of loss is achievable.

Custard_Pie

nigelbb wrote: »

They cannot confer that right. Trespass is the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". Only the person actually in possession of the land (landowner, leaseholder or tenant) can be wronged & thus is able to sue. A 3rd party PPC or management agent is not able to sue for trespass as they do not have possession of the land.

Unless the third party or PPC has clear written authority from the landowner to recover costs and remedies on their behalf, including pursuing through the courts.

Of course, regardless, the remedies need to just and fair in relation to any alleged trespass.