Charging for my time

RobbyD

Hi All

I am in the middle of a POPLA appeal against one of the more tinpot parking companies.

In my original challenge to them i stated my time was valuable and i had already wasted 3 hours of my time on it at a pre estimated cost of £15 per hour based on i could have been doing my part time job instead.

I said if they ignored my drop hands offer and gave me no option but to appeal to POPLA and spend more of my time on their PCN
then i would be charging them £15 per hour of my time.

i stated it was terms and conditions that they would agree to etc, and in thier reply all they said was "we reject your contract and we are not bound to it"

So they have accepted they have read and acknowledged it....

regardless of their reply ( we all could deny being bound to the parking contract in the car parks...) do i now have a genuine case to send them a bill at the end of this for my time?

i mean surely anyone can send anyone invoices but as mines a pre-estimated loss of income surely i have more right to charge than they do?

Thanks in advance

hoohoo

You have a genuine case, but they will not pay unless you take them to court.

Then, its up to the judge, which in the small claims means its a lottery. Several parking companies have lost and had to pay. Others have won.

There is a case coming up this month against ParkingEye, so you might as well chuck in your invoice, then wait for the result of this case.

TDA

RobbyD wrote: »

Hi All

I am in the middle of a POPLA appeal against one of the more tinpot parking companies.

In my original challenge to them i stated my time was valuable and i had already wasted 3 hours of my time on it at a pre estimated cost of £15 per hour based on i could have been doing my part time job instead.

I said if they ignored my drop hands offer and gave me no option but to appeal to POPLA and spend more of my time on their PCN
then i would be charging them £15 per hour of my time.

i stated it was terms and conditions that they would agree to etc, and in thier reply all they said was "we reject your contract and we are not bound to it"

So they have accepted they have read and acknowledged it....

regardless of their reply ( we all could deny being bound to the parking contract in the car parks...) do i now have a genuine case to send them a bill at the end of this for my time?

i mean surely anyone can send anyone invoices but as mines a pre-estimated loss of income surely i have more right to charge than they do?

Thanks in advance

I've never quite understood how this can work (I have read cases of it being succesful [though not in court] over on PPP).

Where is the contractual acceptance on their part? They have outright rejected your offer. The difference in the parking situation is that the case law suggests that in parking your vehicle a valid communication of acceptance of the 'offer' (on the signs) has been made.

In your case there is no such communication of acceptance, on the contrary your offer has been outright rejected.

Edna_Basher

It would work on the basis of an implied contract under which the PPC would be bound by its actions.

In order to have the best chance of success, you would need to make it clear to the PPC at a very early stage that if it chooses to continue to pursue you for its speculative charge, in the event that it ends up having to cancel the charge (e.g. via POPLA), it will be liable for your reasonable costs.

This would work in conjunction with an offer to the PPC to mitigate costs (e.g. an offer to the PPC that if it drops its speculative claim before POPLA requires it to do so, you will agree to forego reimbursement of the costs you had already incurred to date).

The PPC's explicit rejection of your offer would trigger its implied acceptance that it would be liable for your costs were its claim against you to fail.

Herzlos

As above, you offered them the chance to mitigate and they refused, so you're entitled to claim for the time wasted defending a spurious claim, but you'll likely need to take them to small claims court over it.

If going that route, you'll want to change your cost requested to whatever the court approved rate (whatever it is) unless you can prove that you'd potentially lsot £15/hour by having to deal with them.

In any case, you can waste a bit more of their time chasing them about it

TDA

Edna_Basher wrote: »

It would work on the basis of an implied contract under which the PPC would be bound by its actions.

In order to have the best chance of success, you would need to make it clear to the PPC at a very early stage that if it chooses to continue to pursue you for its speculative charge, in the event that it ends up having to cancel the charge (e.g. via POPLA), it will be liable for your reasonable costs.

This would work in conjunction with an offer to the PPC to mitigate costs (e.g. an offer to the PPC that if it drops its speculative claim before POPLA requires it to do so, you will agree to forego reimbursement of the costs you had already incurred to date).

The PPC's explicit rejection of your offer would trigger its implied acceptance that it would be liable for your costs were its claim against you to fail.

Ok so it requires the charge to be cancelled, easy enough at POPLA currently.

What is the consideration from the PPC though?

Half_way

If your going down the claim for expenses route, I would strongly advise that you also claim against whoever hired the parking company as well - such as a supermarket. and let them ( that is those who hired the parking company ) know right from the very start
Two reasons:
In the days of clamping if you wanted to see your money returned the only viable way was to claim against whoever hired the clampits.

Many places are sold on the idea that the parking company will provide a trouble free hassle way free to solve some made up problems that didnt exist in their car park where the PPC will deal with everything. Businesses etc should know full well what they are getting involved with and as such they should be made responsible and liable for the actions of their agents.If the managers at places such as Mc Doanlds/Morrisons etc could be held personal;y liable for the actions of the PPCs the PPCs wouldnt last long in those car parks.

Edna_Basher

TDA wrote: »

What is the consideration from the PPC though?

The consideration would come from the driver / appellant and would equate to the costs (time, effort and incidental expenses) of having to deal with the PPC's claim.

The format more-or-less mirrors the contract that a PPC seeks to form with the driver through the wording on its car park signs.

For example, compare "by parking outside of the confines of a marked bay you agree to pay FCUK Parking Control Limited the sum of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days)" with "by continuing to pursue me for this speculative charge and in the event that your claim against me is unsuccessful, you agree to reimburse me for all of my reasonable costs in handling this claim".

TDA

Edna_Basher wrote: »

The consideration would come from the driver / appellant and would equate to the costs (time, effort and incidental expenses) of having to deal with the PPC's claim.

The format more-or-less mirrors the contract that a PPC seeks to form with the driver through the wording on its car park signs.

For example, compare "by parking outside of the confines of a marked bay you agree to pay FCUK Parking Control Limited the sum of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days)" with "by continuing to pursue me for this speculative charge and in the event that your claim against me is unsuccessful, you agree to reimburse me for all of my reasonable costs in handling this claim".

I was under the impression that consideration was required from both parties?

bod1467

As far as I am aware, there have not been many of these Personal Costs Notifications pursued as far as a court claim thus far, but those that have been have all been successful ... almost all were settled by the PPC prior to court hearing, but I believe one (Davey?) was a win in court.

spikyone

Edna_Basher wrote: »

"by continuing to pursue me for this speculative charge and in the event that your claim against me is unsuccessful, you agree to reimburse me for all of my reasonable costs in handling this claim".

This is utter nonsense, and completely unnecessary.


The PPC (albeit wrongly) believes they owe them money, and have started a process to try and recover it. Your 'contract' says "if you don't stop trying to recover the money you believe I owe you, you are agreeing to be bound by a contract". This is patently an unfair term - it's not negotiated, and it's one-sided in favour of the person who wrote it. On top of that, you can't infer acceptance of a contract on the basis that someone continued doing something they had already started; there would need to be a specific action that shows acceptance. In the car park analogy you make, this is the act of parking your car. If you put in place a 'contract', then as in this case, the PPC will reject it.

Secondly, it's unnecessary because all you need to do is to take them to court for your costs. It is not necessary for them to contractually agree to anything - all you need to show is that you suffered a loss because of their actions. I believe this is most likely to be successful with the bigger companies, where you include an initial appeal statement pointing along the lines of:
"My appeal is based on the assertion that your charges do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Your company has lost at POPLA on hundreds of occasions for precisely this reason, and you are therefore aware that continuing with this course of action is futile. Should you continue to pursue this action, I will seek to recover my personal costs incurred".
Personally, I'd then make this a single-point appeal to POPLA - GPEOL and nothing else. You'll win, and the PPC would be hard-pressed to wriggle out of any claim.