BPA to drop GPEOL Requirement?

trubster

I am sorry Mr Prankster for stealing your post, but I think it would be beneficial to have a wider debate.

Having just read the Pranky's post, I can't believe my eyes, The BPA are contemplating scrapping GPEOL.

My Opinion - Too many people are now leaving for the IPC, a few of the bigger players have moved over and it is only a matter of time until the rest follow suit?

I am sure I read that there would be no BPA without Parking Lie, so maybe some pressure was put on there?

My post is pure speculation and is the sole opinion of the talking leprechaun next to me

spikyone

The BPA can write whatever they want in their CoP. It doesn't change the fact that (despite what HHJ Moloney may think) the PPC is only entitled to reclaim their losses or a "fair" contractual charge. Even POPLA haven't been persuaded by Moloney's line on commercial justification - their decisions are all based on law and I don't recall any where the CoP has held sway. I have a vague recollection that they've even gone so far as to say that breaches of the CoP are not grounds to allow an appeal. I suspect it will be business as usual at POPLA, regardless of the PPCs' collective desire to line their pockets by ignoring the law.

The_Deep

But was precisely is commercial justification? Who decides?

In a court case HHJ Maloney decided that is it in a car park which PE pays £30,000 a year to farm, but what about other car parks where PPCs do not pay but keep the fees? What about landlords parking in their own spaces? What about motorists parking over a demarcation line? What about hospitals?

In a free cark park how can a penalty for a ten minute overstay be commercially justified where, for a similar offence nearby, the Council will want considerably less.

In a multi outlet retail park, with, say, a Wickes, B&M, The Range, Next, a couple of restaurants, cinema, bowling alley, and a couple of furniture shops, what is the commercial justification in telling shoppers they must not park for longer than 3 hours? PPCs already are causing retailers to lose customers, is that sound business practice? I think not.

ampersand

Have just em'd local MP, with links to PP, mse and pepipoo, noting that someone with Fen connection was present.

spikyone

The_Deep wrote: »

But was precisely is commercial justification? Who decides?

Agree with everything you say. My point was that commercial justification is irrelevant and that the removal of GPEOL from the CoP doesn't change anything as far as POPLA appeals are concerned.
POPLA have refused to accept commercial justification in all the cases reported to date on the POPLA decisions thread, and have gone for non-GPEOL every time. The reason seems to be that commercial justification has no legal precedent. POPLA have accepted non-GPEOL as an anti-PPC argument, because it's an established legal principle. From a recent Highview decision by our friend Shehla Pirwany:

The Operator has indicated that the charge is commercially justified and has provided case law in in support of this submission. In cases I have seen from the higher courts, it is clear that the charge cannot be commercially justified if the primary purpose of the charge is to deter a breach.

Simply put, I don't see any reason that we should care too much about the BPA changing their CoP:
1. POPLA and the DVLA don't seem to care what's in the CoP anyway
2. GPEOL still exists as a legal principle and will certainly continue to win at POPLA where any variation on the words "breach", "contravention", etc. is used on the windscreen tickets, signs, NtKs or other documentation
3. If PPCs start trying the contractual charge route, there is always UTCCR to fall back on and an argument that the charge is not a genuine offer and its primary purpose is as a deterrent. A PPC is clearly not offering permission to park across the entrance/exit, or fire exits, or sideways across three disabled bays simply because you've paid them £60.

bazster

Now you know why SRS took VCS into IPC Ltd., clearly it was a move intended to engineer this very change.

It'll make no difference to PoPLA until (i) the PE vs. Beavis appeal is decided in February and (ii) the PoPLA contract with London Councils ends in 11 months' time. Who knows what the outcome of those potentially-momentous events will be?

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Now you know why SRS took VCS into IPC Ltd., clearly it was a move intended to engineer this very change.

It'll make no difference to PoPLA until (i) the PE vs. Beavis appeal is decided in February and (ii) the PoPLA contract with London Councils ends in 11 months' time. Who knows what the outcome of those potentially-momentous events will be?

But the IPC/IAS accept GPEOL in non-contract cases.

trisontana

Judge to mugger :- "Why did you steal that person's wallet?"

Mugger to judge:- "Commercial justification sir. I needed the money to pay for my drugs habit" (Or in the case of SRS, a new yacht.)

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

But the IPC/IAS accept GPEOL in non-contract cases.

True, but that doesn't stop SRS saying "I'll move my companies to IPC and do contractual charge, unless you drop GPEOL. And just to prove I mean it, there goes VCS...".

Still love to see how he's gonna do contractual charge for those airport cases thought...

hoohoo

Guys_Dad wrote: »

But the IPC/IAS accept GPEOL in non-contract cases.

They are on record at a DVLA meeting as saying GPEOL is unworkable.

If the signage states the charge is for breach of contract and you appeal on the grounds of GPEOL, you can get an 'appeal allowed' back in as little as five minutes.

It obviously never even gets to an adjudicator so the conclusion is that the IPC warn their newbies that all appeals on the grounds of GPEOL will be allowed so they better get their signage changed sharpish.

EnigmaPart1

hoohoo wrote: »

They are on record at a DVLA meeting as saying GPEOL is unworkable.

If the signage states the charge is for breach of contract and you appeal on the grounds of GPEOL, you can get an 'appeal allowed' back in as little as five minutes.

It obviously never even gets to an adjudicator so the conclusion is that the IPC warn their newbies that all appeals on the grounds of GPEOL will be allowed so they better get their signage changed sharpish.

2.51 was one i had for PCM