Does anyone know of a PPC that can prove...

Ignatius1

... a GPEOL, written authorisation from a Landowner etc?

There must be at least one that does strictly adhere to the BPA's CoP?

HO87

There are some that get close but I'm not going to name either of them.

da_rule

Certainly not one that I've ever come across with regards to no GPEOL, but if POPLA now decide to follow the Cambridge ruling then this may change.

As for the landowner contract there are court cases where the judge is convinced of the PPC's ability to stand, however, these contracts are usually redacted.

HO87

If POPLA is to go for an updated model of GPEOL (based on Cambridge) then it will go against established case law. Bearing in mind that Cambridge establishes no precedent regardless of how fond and rosy a light one might cast it in. In that respect HHJ Moloney's attempt to establish a new understanding of, what one might term, a "good" penalty, does little other than to act as a pointer and a pointer that may well, of course, sign a dead end.

We still need to make allowances for the fact, setting Moloney's opinion aside for the moment, that PE must perforce have been acting completely at odds with the BPA's CoP which requires that their charges represent a GPEOL. Despite PE's best efforts, and several models, floated at POPLA, they remain unable to convince anyone of that argument and, instead, have now opted for the commercial justification argument. Surely, if one is to demonstrate consistency and good faith such arguments should be supported in depth not, seemingly, as expediency demands?

That ignores the original basis of the CJ argument, that it was a term freely agreed to between parties of equal standing during bilateral negotiations not in the setting of a free car park where the contracting parties are not of equal standing and the contract is entirely one sided. And even this ignores the important element of intention to contract.

Few PPC's will be able to demonstrate the same type of relationship as PE enjoyed in the Cambridge case and, it seems, that the "fishing licence" fee paid by PE may well have been significant in that respect.

atilla

With regards to 'costs', considering many of the parking 'tickets' are issued in supermarket car parks.
Conveniently all the PPCs very conveniently quote he same or very similar in regard to their cost. and yet, the value of the average supermarket (big shed style, not the small convenience types) 'shop' per customer is circa £22.

Annie1960

Ignatius1 wrote: »

... a GPEOL, written authorisation from a Landowner etc?

There must be at least one that does strictly adhere to the BPA's CoP?

None will ever be able to show GPEOL because their only source of income appears to be the revenue from PCNs. PCNs must therefore also cover all their business costs as well as their losses.

nigelbb

The bizarre business model of the PPCs means that they only make money if they don't do the job properly that they are engaged to do by their clients. If they were 100% successful in deterring parking contraventions then they would have no income.

bazster

HO87 wrote: »

That ignores the original basis of the CJ argument, that it was a term freely agreed to between parties of equal standing during bilateral negotiations not in the setting of a free car park where the contracting parties are not of equal standing and the contract is entirely one sided. And even this ignores the important element of intention to contract.

Not forgetting also that it was crystal clear from the original successful CJ case that there would still be no CJ where the penalty was primarily intended as a deterrent.

It is on this point in particular where HHJ Moloney is attempting to break entirely new legal ground - and breaking entirely new legal ground seems somewhat presumptuous for a mere circuit judge, even if he is the most senior circuit judge in the universe.

Guys_Dad

Annie1960 wrote: »

None will ever be able to show GPEOL because their only source of income appears to be the revenue from PCNs. PCNs must therefore also cover all their business costs as well as their losses.

Regrettably there are a few cases that have gone to court where the PPC has persuaded a judge that their costs/losses are justified. Thankfully, these are in the minority.