Help I've got a PCN for pulling into an access road

atilla

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I'm sorry, if you really are promoting council run traffic/parking enforcement as not profit making, I'm afraid you won't be getting many followers.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.!!

nobbysn*ts

atilla wrote: »

But not all public departments!

Private on the otherhand can only survive and grow from issuing more and more tickets.

??Confused??

atilla

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

??Confused??

Me? Certainly not.

Nodding_Donkey

Well I hope the OP is ignoring all this bickering and busy writing his appeal and working on his successful POPLA appeal when the appeal to VCS is rejected.

Coupon-mad

arcon5 wrote: »

Then it's about time the companies stopped disguising them as 'penalty' charges and started advertising service charges instead.

0-2 hours = free
2+ hours = £70

That way their not trying to claim breach of contract, merely chase for payment for services rendered.

Not many PPCs do that - it would mean they'd have to pay VAT because the parking fees would be just that, 'service charge' fees. And consumer law, if well argued, exposes the above to be a disguised penalty anyway:

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3
Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.

19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'

The OFT’s view in a document relating to bank charges:
‘’1.19 In our view the basic principles set out here also apply to other analogous default charges in consumer contracts’’

" Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism."

3.2 The requirement of 'good faith' reflects the principle of fair and open dealing with consumers. It does not simply mean that terms must not be used deceitfully; it means that terms should be drafted in a way that respects consumers' legitimate interests. In assessing fairness we take note of not only how a term is used, but how it could be used. ''



This thread really should be moved to the parking sub-board!

nobbysn*ts

To be fair, the op got the answer in post#3

Crabman

I've moved this thread to the Parking Tickets board... better late than never I suppose

HO87

Crabman wrote: »

I've moved this thread to the Parking Tickets board... better late than never I suppose

Indeed.

No reflection on you Crabman but given the understanding, non-judgemental response the OP received is it any wonder that they haven't returned and posted for 2 days?

One hopes that those posters who pontificated in stunningly obvious ignorance of the reality of the legal situation behind PPC PCN's get something of a better welcome should they ever need to seek advice on that forum. That said, it seems reasonably apparent that they know it all anyway.