New parking regulations at home...

Coupon-mad

Definitely do not tell POPLA this:

[STRIKE]on top of the 10 I already have now![/STRIKE]

2. The operator alleges trespass, but the land is not owned by them.

Maybe add at this point:

The decision in Beavis v ParkingEye held at 97. 'As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing.'

In the Beavis case ParkingEye did not argue that their charge was merely compensation for damages or loss, but this operator is trying to argue that it is a matter of trespass, which leaves them with no sum lawfully able to be pursued by a non-landowner party.


(BUT: are they trying to argue trespass)?

Or did they quote Beavis and commercial justification or did they allege it was loss caused by a breach? What do the letters say EXACTLY and what does the evidence pack say about the basis and justification of the charge?

Daniel_san

Thank you Coupon-mad

Yes sorry that's more a rant that I hope I'd have had the sense to remove before sending, thank you

Thank you, I'll add the paragraph in regarding Beavis.

They are arguing no permit displayed, breach of contract, breach of terms, and trespass. In the appeal rejection letter, they also referred to the car park as "our private land", which I've already noted in my initial POPLA appeal letter.



Here is their GPEOL break down too FYI


Any feedback appreciated as always, thank you

nigelbb

They cannot claim 'No permit' & breach of contract & trespass as these are all contradictory.

ManxRed

Well, for starters, some of those costs are to do with preparation of appeals, debt collection, and final reminders. Now, only a small proportion of motorists appeal and end up receiving debt collector letters and reminders. So why, for the ones that don't appeal, and simply pay up, are THEY being charged the same amount per ticket as those that do? The non-appealers are paying too much as UKPS won't incur half those charges for those tickets.

Conclusion? Those charges aren't actually attributable to any specific ticket issued.

Also, the motorist isn't supposed to fund appeals, they're supposed to be free to the motorist as a right.

That's in addition to the fact that - as nigelbb says, Trespass, and breach of contract are mutually exclusive - you cannot possibly have a scenario where both apply at the same time. So, which one is it? Different rules apply to each, and your defence would be tailored accordingly.

Daniel_san

FYI.....I've just got a 2nd "evidence pack" through from UK Parking Services, which has now been updated to include the a statement re Beavis Vs PE:

2. The drivers have to make sure that they always DISPLAY a Valid UK Parking Solutions Permit. It is motorists responsibility to make sure that, they read all the terms and conditions for parking on our private road. It is a motorist responsibility to make sure that the permit is clearly DISPLAYED in their vehicle. Even if they think that the permit is in a clearly visible position they must make sure that they can clearly see the permit after they have closed their vehicle door. The permit could be partially obscured by their tax disc for example. Even wind from the door closing or vibrations from the door closing could dislodge the permit and cause it to move into a position that means it is unable to be read properly. Unfortunately in this case the appellant does not provide even a copy of a Valid UK Parking Solutions Permit, which makes us to believe that they are not a Permit holder, therefore are liable for Parking Charge Notice. The appellant claims in their appeal letter to POPLA that we have no contract in place, so please find attached our dated and singed contract, for the location mentioned above, in Section F. Also the appellant state that our charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and they require a full breakdown. However since 4th of November 2015 the Operators don’t need to provide a full break down of their costs, due to the fact that the British Parking Association (BPA) welcomes the Supreme Court decision in the Court Case, Parking Eye v Beavis and Wardley, which provided clarity on the use of contract law for parking on private land. The ruling supported the view of the court of Appeal judges in April this year and that of Judge Moloney that the charge should be an effective deterrent. The judgement confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions. In effect the Supreme Court has concluded that the AOS Code of Practice that all the Approved Operators subscribe to is a good and fair model. Therefore as a member of the British Parking Association, UK Parking Solutions set their prices as subscribed in the AOS Code of Practice.

Daniel_san

Update: I've finally received an email from POPLA, which confused me a little....

"Thank you for contacting POPLA.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has now heard the case of ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis. However, its decision has not been published as of yet.
We have conducted our initial assessment of this appeal and our assessor has determined that this appeal relates to the issues currently under consideration by the Supreme Court.
As such, we will adjourn the case until the Supreme Court has reached its decision. Once it has provided its decision, we will re-consider the appeal accordingly.
Please note that no enforcement action can proceed once a case is registered at POPLA, so you should not attempt to pursue payment while this case is adjourned.
Yours Sincerely,
Anthony Davidson
POPLA Team"

　　
I'm not seeing the Beavis connection, given, as I understand it, that PE were paying money to the land owner for the rights to issue PCN's as per their terms, and in my case they have no contract with the land owner at all. Also, the Supreme court ruling was published some time ago now, wasn't it?

bod1467

There's another thread here that talks about this specific issue, as I recall.

Pranky has also blogged about it.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

The_Slithy_Tove

Daniel_san wrote: »

I'm not seeing the Beavis connection, given, as I understand it, that PE were paying money to the land owner for the rights to issue PCN's as per their terms, and in my case they have no contract with the land owner at all. Also, the Supreme court ruling was published some time ago now, wasn't it?

The fact that PE were paying the landowner has NO relevance to the Beavis outcome whasoever, it's a null argument.

However, parking in private residential car parks is so far removed from parking in a retail park, that Beavis is completely irrelevant to your case. E.g. no need for keeping a turnover of cars, no "promise to leave" after a certain period, no offer to park for the general public in the first place. Add to that the lack of right to offer parking in the first place, no contract, etc., etc., and you wonder why POPLA have decided it is.

And the SC decided last November!

Daniel_san

Thank you to you both.

Slithy - yes exactly, I'm pretty confused and disappointed after almost 8 weeks, that's all they've managed.

Coupon-mad

POPLA have made hardly any decisions in the scheme of things, bearing in mind the thousands that must be stacked up.

Did you email to rebut the evidence pack? You must focus POPLA's mind on how different your case is from Beavis and point out any omissions in the evidence. Did you do so? You need the final word, it's not too late to email POPLA; they normally add comments to the file.