Genuine pre-estimate of losses

Peerob

Re: genuine pre-estimate of losses.
I have been doing a bit of reading

As I understand it, it would work something like this:

The company charging me parking was UKPC who were contracted by McDonald's to manage the car park in exchange for them paying a sum of money every month. In effect, they were hiring the car park from McDonald's in order to earn an income.

They are obliged as part of the contract with McDonald's to allow people to park for two hours free of charge.

UKPC make their money from the contract by charging people who overstay, that is their business. If they cannot charge people they don't get an income which is how they justify their losses.Because if they couldn't charge it, they wouldn't have a business or an income

That is how I guess they justify their losses. It is UKPC losses that are being claimed not Macdonald

esmerobbo

Geez you didn't even hit the dartboard!

They could offer parking but who would pay to eat at McD's , their not they are claiming breach of contract, a breach is remedied by putting the person back to the position they were in before the breach ie: GPEOL.

Peerob

Perhaps you could explain. That is how the judge explained it in the Beavis case. (Yes I know it is going to appeal).Different companies. I know

Redx

there are many business models employed of which UKPC and McD are just one of the scenarios as can be seen if you read this recent blog on pranksters website http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/barnet-hospital-install-parking-system.html

if you spend an hour reading his blogs you will find various musings on the various models , of which gpeol is one of many

the point in your musings is that the model you say UKPC are using is gpeol, yet its not gpeol at all as no loss occurred so it can never make any money , hence the comment in pranksters blog about these companies going bankrupt

so the model you present is correct but they do not use GPEOL as the argument , we do, which is why they always fail at POPLA.

The model they are using is heavy charges punishing those who overstay or dont stick their hand up when the UKPC operative does his/her "survey" and they then try to justify the charges they place on that motorist, which POPLA always reject as the punishment never fits the "crime"

by all means do the research to understand the issues involved , especially with your own McD case as the starting point , but present that case as one of punishment through excessive and unenforceable "penalties" designed to deter, not gpeol when no actual loss to the landowner occurred

the more you learn, the more there is to learn, especially on this topic

glad to see yours was cancelled

the Beavis case was different as PE apparently "hire" or "lease" that car park, so it is thought that other rules applied , but that is going to the court of appeal in 6 months so is also thought to be a flawed ruling, as again fully explained on pranksters website

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-win-cambridge-test-case.html

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5043475

I do not believe that UKPC hire that car park you mentioned

they are contracted as parking enforcement

esmerobbo

Peerob wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain. That is how the judge explained it in the Beavis case. (Yes I know it is going to appeal).Different companies. I know

Not quite in Beavis he agreed it was a penalty, but he then said it was commercially justified as PE paid a grand a week to manage the car park. However even he was not sure hence why he passed the buck to the COA.

Even with his decision PE should only be able to recover any cost, unless they delved into the full accounts of this car park he would have to accept what PE said was correct.

There are a few PPC's who offer an agreed fee contractual parking, however I don't think many retailers would go for that method.

Hopefully the COA will clarify things once they look at it. I think their decision will have more ramifications then just the PPC operations.

bargepole

Peerob wrote: »

UKPC make their money from the contract by charging people who overstay, that is their business. If they cannot charge people they don't get an income which is how they justify their losses.Because if they couldn't charge it, they wouldn't have a business or an income

This is utter nonsense.


UKPC state that their charges are liquidated damages for breach of contract.


A fundamental principle of English law is that, when a contract is breached, the aggrieved party can only sue to be put back in the same position as if the contract had not been breached. It can be an exact figure if known, or a rough and ready estimate, i.e. a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


If the contract had not been breached, i.e. if the motorist had not overstayed, the payment due to UKPC under the contract would be nil.


Any costs that they incur in chasing payment, occur afterwards, and were not incurred as a direct result of the breach.


In the Beavis case, the Judge had already decided that no direct loss was caused to PE by the defendant's actions in overstaying.


PE's charges were, therefore, penalties, which in every other case have been ruled as unenforceable.


However, he decided to allow them on the basis of 'commercial justification', even though there were no legal precedents for this applicable to consumers - he was trying to make new law from a small claims first instance hearing. This is the basis of the arguments for the appeal, to be heard 23rd/24th February, at the Court of Appeal.

Peerob

Thank you for explaining that, it does get more complicated, but it is a very interesting subject. I can read in peace now that my charges have been dropped.I almost paid them to make it go away.

Coupon-mad

There is no way UKPC pay money to their clients. Most PPCs do nothing of the sort and just shuffle up, no doubt appearing to be very plausible at a meeting between some suits at Head Office, discussing how the PPC can 'deal with your parking problems for free, we can even monitor your disabled spaces...' etc. And the Head Office hears the words 'this is free' and can't sign on the dotted line quick enough. Never mind that even the monitoring of the disabled spaces is along lines which breach the Equality Act, but no-one knows or asks about the finer detail.

UKPC or whoever, then make their money from the uninformed/more money than sense/terminally stupid/vulnerable/those with no internet connection/those who don't think to Google something before opening their wallet/or elderly victims who pay PCNs thinking they are...a PCN!

Guys_Dad

Peerob wrote: »

UKPC make their money from the contract by charging people who overstay, that is their business. If they cannot charge people they don't get an income which is how they justify their losses.Because if they couldn't charge it, they wouldn't have a business or an income

bargepole wrote: »

This is utter nonsense.


UKPC state that their charges are liquidated damages for breach of contract.


A fundamental principle of English law is that, when a contract is breached, the aggrieved party can only sue to be put back in the same position as if the contract had not been breached. It can be an exact figure if known, or a rough and ready estimate, i.e. a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


If the contract had not been breached, i.e. if the motorist had not overstayed, the payment due to UKPC under the contract would be nil.


Any costs that they incur in chasing payment, occur afterwards, and were not incurred as a direct result of the breach.


In the Beavis case, the Judge had already decided that no direct loss was caused to PE by the defendant's actions in overstaying.


PE's charges were, therefore, penalties, which in every other case have been ruled as unenforceable.


However, he decided to allow them on the basis of 'commercial justification', even though there were no legal precedents for this applicable to consumers - he was trying to make new law from a small claims first instance hearing. This is the basis of the arguments for the appeal, to be heard 23rd/24th February, at the Court of Appeal.

Actually, what Peerob writes isn't nonsense if you break down what he writes and tweak it a little.


"UKPC make their money from the contract by charging people who overstay, that is their business." Yes, that is correct.

"If they cannot charge people they don't get an income which is how they try to justify their losses." Well, again that is correct too.

Because if they couldn't charge it or changed their business model , they wouldn't have a business or an income. And wouldn't that be a good thing too!

Ivor_Pecheque

Peerob, wherever you go, you'll get advice that the parking companies can only claim for "genuine pre estimate of loss."

Actually putting pen to paper for your defence, and sourcing this doctrine can be more problematic. Every one know's it's true, unless you've read your "Casebook on Contract," cover to cover, you may be a little worse off than PE with their sparkling lawyers (!).

Sometimes the mere mention of GPEOL is enough to steer the Judge in your favour. But what happens if he asks a question about it ? First thing is to get your head round the concept.

Luckily, the statute stuff backs it up, (I pulled out a document from the Department of Transport and also POPLA.) Judge in our case ruled on something different but his closing remarks were something on the lines of "even if she was parked, it would be difficult to justify the amount Parking Eye were trying to recover justified a genuine pre estimate of loss.)