UK CPM Parking charge notice for parking in our own space with no permit displayed

knightrider14

Sorry just quickly I've adapted the 'Pe Vs Beavis' as below, the last paragraph I've taken out entirely (in red) is this ok:-

Nor is the charge 'commercially justified'. If UKCPM cite 'ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley' it's irrelevant since Mr Beavis is taking that flawed small claim decision to the Court of Appeal, just as HHJ Moloney fully expected at the time he made his decision, which was full of caveats and full of holes and a distinct lack of case law. In addition, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA and likely to be broadly similar to any effort made by UKCPM - that:

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

My case is the same and UKCPM contracts are nothing like ParkingEye's contract in the Beavis case anyway, where Parking Eye paid £1000 per week for what was in effect a 'fishing licence' to catch victims and where the Operator made out they were the principal. In my case, UKCPM are merely agents at best, with a bare contractor's licence to put up signage and 'issue tickets' and they are known to be paid by their client so they have no standing nor loss to claim in their own right anyway. Of course money changing hands will affect any calculations of so-called 'loss' and is one of several reasons why I will require the landowner contract in full (unredacted) as per point #3.

Guys_Dad

Would it not be better to leave this till you see the PE papers?

knightrider14

Sorry PE papers what do you mean?

knightrider14

Oh you mean the actual papers relating to the case? I'm a little confused do you think I should leave this out of my appeal full stop?

Coupon-mad

I think you could leave it out for now, not even sure UKCPM do cite PE v Beavis and if they do you can use the above words in an email to POPLA later on to rebut the 'evidence' UKPCM come up with (you will be copied in by email and can then send your final words to POPLA).

knightrider14

Hi, I sent my appeal off about a week or so ago to POPLA online and have now received a debt collectors letter from a company called DRP.

Surely nothing should happen until POPLA have reviewed my case. Do I ignore the letter or inform them that I am appealing with POPLA?

Thanks

Umkomaas

Do I ignore the letter or inform them that I am appealing with POPLA?

No! You make a very strongly worded complaint to Steve Clarke at the BPA (see post #6 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky for his email addy).

But you also need to get on with your POPLA appeal - it is time limited, so don't miss out on that opportunity to guarantee kicking this nonsense into the long grass.

knightrider14

I have sent my appeal off already, I submitted it a couple of weeks ago now. Is there a rough amount of time it should take to get a response?

Umkomaas

knightrider14 wrote: »

I have sent my appeal off already, I submitted it a couple of weeks ago now. Is there a rough amount of time it should take to get a response?

+/- 6 weeks is the norm for POPLA. Have they acknowledged your appeal? They should give you a date estimate in that acknowledgement.

Are you sending off a snotogram to Steve Clark?

knightrider14

No I haven't received an acknowledgement as yet, I was going to email POPLA on their enquiries address to get some more info.

I submitted all the data online and even uploaded a word doc of my appeal as well.

Yes once I've received confirmation from POPLA I'll email Steve.