BPA to drop GPEOL Requirement?

hoohoo

This could actually work out well for motorists. If parking companies are foolish enough to admit their charge is not a gpeol, but instead is commercially justified, then if the Beavis appeal is upheld they will be dead in the water.

EnigmaPart1

hoohoo wrote: »

This could actually work out well for motorists. If parking companies are foolish enough to admit their charge is not a gpeol, but instead is commercially justified, then if the Beavis appeal is upheld they will be dead in the water.

Indeed they will be

trubster

A Geo-tagged image of old signage in Meadowhall (PCM)

So, technically still a GPEOL winner?

OK, I will come clean - I only wanted a picture of the new signs (which there were none) to show how they worded the disabled bays as I have a personal interest in this site

trubster

bazster wrote: »

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

I would agree to a £60 parking charge to park at the front door of the airport for 4 weeks, it would cost more than that to park in a normal car park or use a meet + greet

Like we are told if we get a ticket in the lorries whilst unloading in london, don't move until you are ready to go as they will do you twice

Guys_Dad

So when they all go to a contract based strategy, then an invoice with a breakdown of VAT should be demanded during the appeal process.

If a service is being offered and the company is VAT registered, then the service should contain VAT and as many motorists themselves are VAT registered, the breakdown is needed to enable them to reclaim it. Even if no VAT is included, there is a requirement for the invoice to say "VAT Not Applicable".

By stating that the invoice will not be considered for payment until it complies with VAT law, the motorist can not reasonably be taken to court as they have not declined to pay, just simply waiting for the correct paperwork.

Of course, the PPC will be reluctant to do a VAT invoice as, at a stroke, 20% of their income will be due to HMRC and if they say "VAT Not Applicable", then HMRC should be notified and will have something to say about that!

Every cloud etc.

Edna_Basher

trubster wrote: »

I would agree to a £60 parking charge to park at the front door of the airport for 4 weeks

Or even better; in the absence of Keeper liability, you could borrow a friend's car and park there for free:)

trubster

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Or even better; in the absence of Keeper liability, you could borrow a friend's car and park there for free:)

Possibly, but you never know, they might actually think it is a security threat after putting 14 windscreen invoices on and blow it up (Invoices included)

trisontana

Somebody has posted this reply from Steve Clark on Pranky's blog:-

You are quite right Version 5 of the Code will be published shortly and references to GPEOL will be removed from Clause 19.5.

· The maximum recommended level will remain at £100 – you will appreciate that prevailing legislation does not allow us to set a maximum figure much as we wish we could. Many locations operate a charge much lower than £100.

· The decisions at POPLA are based on the evidence submitted by both parties and the relevant/prevailing legislation, not what our Code contains. The Lead Adjudicator and his Assessors are fiercely independent and I would not expect this Code change to alter how they view GPEOL.

· My position on GPEOL is that if a motorist is unhappy with the Terms & Conditions of any parking location including any sum for breach of the ‘parking contract’, they should deal with it at the point of parking, namely by locating their car somewhere else. The amount of the parking charge should not be something that they find unreasonable after they have breached the specified Terms & Conditions and which they seek to use as a means of getting off.

See the nasty "getting off" remark at the end? So according to the BPA's mindset, PPCs are the good guys and the motorists are always the bad guys for trying to evade paying their fake fines.

He also mentions that £100 figure. We all know that amount was only plucked out of the air to try and imitate council parking charges and has nothing to do with the actual loss suffered by the landowner.

bazster

Steve Clark proves yet again that either he does not understand or does not care about the law.

Aaron_Aadvark

Many car parks require motorists to "display a valid tax disc" even though the DVLA does not now issue discs.

According to Mr Clark's logic people should not park in such car parks because they disagree with this impossible condition.

Sort of defeats the point of the car park Steve?