Lost at POPLA

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

You are not reading the new regs carefully enough. Some aspects apply to all consumer contracts, but the cancellation right applies only to distance or off-premises contracts.

A PPC "contract" is certainly not an off-premises contract, and I will not be convinced it's a distance contract until a court says so.

Just because you want it to be so don't make it so.

I have - I consider a PPC contract to be a distance contract (not concluded face to face). I do agree a court would need to decide but why would that stop consumers making an informed decision based on the fact that the new regs actually say that 'rental of a parking space' is covered by the regs and that a distance contract is one made without the company and consumer both being simultaneously present. Why would a consumer NOT try to exercise a right to withdraw, it cannot hurt at all.

My reading of the regs tells me it is not a contract made 'on business premises' because if you read about those, they absolutely assume face to face negotiation every time (which is never the case with a PPC unless they had a man in a kiosk talking it through with everyone first!). Therefore that only leaves 'off premises' (which it is not) and 'distance contract'. I say it's the latter in my armchair lawyer view, fully admitting I am not legally trained. And I haven't seen anything that changes my mind on my interpretation nor that would cause a consumer any issues by trying.

I have seen that 'contracts concluded by electronic means' are exempt (e.g. Pay and Display car parks).

Maybe this needs a new thread!

bazster

1gring wrote: »

I'm well confused!! But I do appreciate everyone trying to help

It is being suggested that you make creative use of a law which, prima facie, is intended for a quite different purpose. This has sparked a debate on whether that law really is applicable, but the bottom line is none of us knows because no-one has tried it before and no court has ruled on the question.

You can try it if you like, it can't hurt unless the thing lands in a court of law (which isn't terribly likely) and the judge has a hissy fit about it. On the other hand it'll be water off a ducks back to VCS (and also, I would suggest, the IAS) so I can't see it's going to achieve much.

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I have - I consider a PPC contract to be a distance contract (not concluded face to face). Maybe this needs a new thread!

But when push-comes-to-shove presenting Coupon-Mad's opinion in a court of law is not going to cut much ice.

1gring

Anyone think I should just pay? I feel I dont know enough about it

Coupon-mad

No-one here will tell you to pay.

Why is it so difficult to understand? What do you think everyone did before POPLA existed as an option? THEY IGNORED PPCS (I ignored 4 fake PCNs and some people ignored dozens and dozens!). They just collected & laughed at the debt collector letters that followed - and in the odd rare case of a small claim they defended it. We help people defend small claims - not a big deal and hardly any more at stake than you are currently being 'suggested' to pay! No effect on credit rating, nothing to lose except if a person loses in small claims they would have to pay maybe £50 on top in court fees. Alternatively:

- Win in small claims and the victim (you) pays nothing.

- Never get a small claim and the victim pays nothing. Most cases never go that far, and just see out the same junk mail from debt collectors that everyone always ignored before POPLA existed. This is not a big deal. Just keep all the letters and see what pans out.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

But when push-comes-to-shove presenting Coupon-Mad's opinion in a court of law is not going to cut much ice.

You know I am not suggesting that. But nor is 'not bothering to send a Notice of Cancellation because Bazster's opinion is that cancellation rights in the regs don't cover this contract'. People should test it and that is why I went the whole hog and have added a Notice of Cancellation into the new 'first appeal' and explained why:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5079146

Feel free to comment on that thread - that could be the place for this discussion unless you want to start a new thread yourself. Let's all discuss this important point and maybe somewhere else as we are confusing this OP.

I welcome the discussion and only made the change to the first appeal, because I firmly believe it's another bullet that cannot possibly hurt to have in a consumer's favour - and if it's a duff bullet, when tested in court, so what? It is neither unreasonable nor vexatious for a consumer to simply send, in good faith in the belief they have that protection in the Consumer Rights Directive, a two line letter cancelling an unsolicited contract that they did not accept, did not understand nor read - the existence of which they were unaware because the 'service' was foisted upon them.

Even if an odd case or two goes to small claims and a Judge says the new regs don't apply (in his/her opinion) it still sparks a defence point about unfairness/unsolicited service foisted upon a person, and lack of information supplied by the claimant in not making the terms and information prominent enough. And the OP could say as they sent that cancellation notice, no other debt collector costs etc. can be added even if they were the driver because the PPC failed to mitigate the loss at that point and reply properly to the Notice of Cancellation or go straight to a claim. Can't be a bad thing.

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

My reading of the regs tells me it is not a contract made 'on business premises' because if you read about those, they absolutely assume face to face negotiation every time

Where does it say that? An "on-premises" contract is defined simply as anything which isn't the other two!

1gring

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No-one here will tell you to pay.

Why is it so difficult to understand? What do you think everyone did before POPLA existed as an option? THEY IGNORED PPCS (I ignored 4 fake PCNs and some people ignored dozens and dozens!). They just collected & laughed at the debt collector letters that followed - and in the odd rare case of a small claim they defended it. We help people defend small claims - not a big deal and hardly any more at stake than you are currently being 'suggested' to pay! No effect on credit rating, nothing to lose except if a person loses in small claims they would have to pay maybe £50 on top in court fees. Alternatively:

- Win in small claims and the victim (you) pays nothing.

- Never get a small claim and the victim pays nothing. Most cases never go that far, and just see out the same junk mail from debt collectors that everyone always ignored before POPLA existed. This is not a big deal. Just keep all the letters and see what pans out.

Dont worry CM I am not paying just wanted to see what others thought and yes I dont know much but learning thanks to you and a few others on here

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Where does it say that? An "on-premises" contract is defined simply as anything which isn't the other two!

You honestly reckon a contract conducted at arms length via a sign that may or may not be drawn to a consumer's attention and doesn't meet Lord Denning's red-hand rule, is an on-premises contract? One that needs less regulation, despite the overarching aims of the Consumer Rights Directive?! I disagree and cannot be persuaded on that until I see a high level Judge agree with you!

A ‘distance contract’ means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

Unlike in previous Directives, the EU has deliberately not defined 'means of distance communication' this time. That's a good thing.

1gring

Doesn't the trader ie 'me' has to agree tho? or by reading you are agreeing?