Has anyone seen this before?

Carthesis

I just happened to see this while looking for something else:

ptlappeals.co.uk/home/102.html (add the www at the front)

I have had no dealings with them, and they seem like just another set of bullies to me, but I'm wondering if anyone else has had the pleasure / misfortune?

AoD

Never heard of them but they are on the BPA AOS list.

Love that link. The old "armchair lawyer" accusation.

"Parking tickets and charges, especially those issued on private land are hot topics for debate often fuelled by armchair lawyers who use various media such as the internet as their soapbox - As with many aspects of the internet this advice is very often ill founded and the people giving it are not legally qualified in any way and very often hide behind aliases and appear on many forums under multiple identities."

EDIT: And look at this ...

Domain name:
ptlappeals.co.uk

Registrant:
Spot Creative Design

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Carthesis

Yeah, made me chuckle too.

I also love the fact they've stuck up a link to Schedule 4 as if it supports them. Having actually read it, it relates SOLELY to recovery of unpaid parking charges - i.e. if you park in a pay-and-display and don't, they can recover what you should have paid.

It doesn't mention a thing about them being able to charge you £60 for 'overstaying' by five minutes in a car park that is otherwise free...

Umkomaas

If you read the POPLA appeals they have won, every one that I read was based on motorist mitigation.

Also have a look at their 'Breakdown of Costs' and have a chuckle :rotfl:

Carthesis

You mean the bit that says "our costs and incurred losses are basically the amount it costs the company to pursue you for our unfair charges"?

Yeah... interesting that.

What a tool.

It seems from reading through that this is basically a one-man operation. What a tool.

Umkomaas

It's this 10-part masterpiece:

Business Model and Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

Background/Business Model.

1. There is a perception among various elements of the population that operating and/or managing a car park is easy and is highly profitable. Such a view reflects a misunderstanding of the reality and the costs involved in doing so.

2. Our business model is based on receiving small fees from members of the public that use our car park in return for a service. For example for the fee paid at a pay and display machine, or the price paid for a parking permit. It is in order to protect this revenue stream that it is necessary to issue a Parking Charge Notice to those who fail to comply with the well-advertised and clear terms and conditions for the location.

3. If it were to become public knowledge that we took no action against motorists that failed to comply with the terms and conditions. Then there would be no reason for members of public to pay for their parking or comply with the parking requirements for the location. Then there would be a real danger that our business model would break down and our revenue stream would be damaged. It is for this vital reason that it is necessary to issue a Parking Charge Notice.

Contractual basis of parking.

4. Our Parking Charge Notice represents liquidated and ascertained damages. The measure of our damages is the loss of its revenue (for example the pay-and-display ticket not paid for) plus the cost of recovering that sum. The method of determining the quantum of damages is through the mechanism of liquidated and ascertained damages. Lest there be any doubt as to the legitimacy or enforceability of a liquidated and ascertained damages clause, I refer to Chitty on Contracts, 31st Edition, paragraph 26-171.

5. Our terms and conditions are clearly advertised throughout the parking location and make it clear that a Parking Charge Notice may be issued for a breach of contract.

6. It is lawful that an offeree can enter into a contract through conduct, so long as the terms and conditions are clearly advertised. In this case there is clearly and offer and acceptance, with the consideration for the contract being the benefit of being able to park.

7. There was therefore a clear and valid contract. The final point to demonstrate which we do in the rest of this submission is to show that our Parking Charge Notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

8. I have explained that our business model is operated on the basis of payments for parking or by way of purchase of a parking permit. It is to protect our business model that we need to issue Parking Charge Notices. As the Director of this company a significant amount of my time is spent pursuing outstanding Parking Charge Notices.

9. I estimate that I spend approximately 3 hours of my time pursuing the average Parking Charge Notice. It is true that some Notices require very little time and are for example settled quickly, however some Notices take considerably longer than 3 hours, for example a case that is referred to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals). But taking the range of different outcome into consideration I estimate I spend 3 hours on a typical Parking Charge Notice. My time costs our company approximateky£30 per hour. Any surplus revenue that is recovered is allocated towards the actual costs of incurred in processing the case, for example actual POPLA fees paid as an average over the number of cases issued and the costs incurred in receiving legal advice.

10. It is for the reasons stated above that the £100 Parking Charge Notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Custard_Pie

Looks like an armchair lawyer, using various media such as the internet as their soapbox

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Oh that idiot
POPLA didnt buy the Hourly rate rubbish

Custard_Pie

Carthesis wrote: »

I just happened to see this while looking for something else:

ptlappeals.co.uk/home/102.html (add the www at the front)

I have had no dealings with them, and they seem like just another set of bullies to me, but I'm wondering if anyone else has had the pleasure / misfortune?

Interesting. My thoughts as an average member of public armchair observer, using media as my soapbox

1) Thought BPA clearly stated that PPC can't use the word ticket to identify their invoices and must use charge instead
2) Is a contract an agreement?
3) Are administrative costs a genuine pre-estimate of loss?
4) Is it true that have a CCJ settled against a person affects their credit rating?
5) How can a registered keeper appeal against a charge/ticket/agreement/contract or whatever it is that is enforced?
6) So, the breach of the agreement or contract is via liquidated or ascertained damages? In other words a penalty. So, they pay taxes and VAT upon this to HMRC?
7) So, a person can enter into a contract just by being in a place, thus creating absolute liability. Hmmm, not strictly true. A contract (not agreement, as that wording has now appeared to have been dropped) requires an invitation to treat and an acceptance on behalf of the acceptor. The burden of proof is upon the offeree to show that the acceptee was aware that a contract had been entered in to and accepted, or the chance to counter-offer for the goods or service being offered.
8) So, PoPLA charges are now recoverable? I thought that this independant body was meant to be free to those who receive charges. I wonder if BPA endorse the policy of factoring in PoPLA costs into a GPEOL model by this PPC?
9) So, admin costs for pursuing drivers is a GPEOL? There would be no cost for accommodation, utilities, vehicles, internet, etc, etc regardless? LOL

:T

Custard_Pie

Would also say that as stated that the web page for refused PoPLA appeals is very misleading. Gives the driver the impression that a PoPLA appeal will always fail. As we know, PoPLA is happy to coach PPC being the independent body that they are, where as they refuse to state on their web site that mitigation is no defence for an appeal.

bod1467

To be fair, the POPLA website does say that they won't consider mitigating circumstances.

https://www.popla.org.uk/makinganappeal.htm#How is your appeal considered

The Assessor considers all of the evidence from you and from the operator but cannot allow an appeal because of mitigating circumstances