Pizza Hut Parking Charge Notice

RobinHill

Coupon-Mad I need your help please. The POPLA appeal examples that I am trying to use (posts 4895330 and 5135670) both state that the NtK letter refers to "breach of contract" (see extract below). The one I have received (see attached) doesn't mention these words, or should I understand the actually letter itself is regarding a matter of breach of contract. Thank you

1. The Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have been suffered by the Landowner. I put Civil Enforcement to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. The Notice to Keeper letter refers to 'breach of contract' so the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.

ManxRed

Change it to this:

The demand for a payment of £100 is a punitive charge, denoted by the wording on the signs (photos enclosed) that the terms apply in order to 'deter abuse', and therefore the charges must be in relation to damages. They must therefore reflect the financial loss suffered by the Landowner. I put Civil Enforcement to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. The charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.

RobinHill

Hi ManxRed, I don't know whether CEL are claiming for damages or a contractual sum. It seems oddly vague to me, but I guess this is part of their downfall. Cheers

[EDIT] sorry just seen your 2nd post above.

ManxRed

They're trying to claim for a contractual sum, but they've failed miserably with that sign.

To deter abuse = penalty.

RobinHill

Apologies but I don't want to upset anyone by asking to check people's kind advice but I am using Coupon-mad's examples. Coupon-mad are you ok with this change? Thank you.

RobinHill

Probably FAO Coupon-Mad. Are they claiming a "Contractual sum" or do we need to cover the "Damages" aspect too? Thank you

Coupon-mad

ManxRed wrote: »

They're trying to claim for a contractual sum, but they've failed miserably with that sign.

To deter abuse = penalty.

ManxRed is correct: 'to deter abuse' = any charge has to be a GPEOL. So use his words!

RobinHill

Cheers Coupon-mad, Need some more help please. We have spent most of the day trying to understand your February example and apply it to our situation but we are struggling to understand a number of the points in particular the wording / terminology.

We understand the Damages / Contractual Sum topics fairly well, however point 1 appears to focus on Damages. It doesn't seem to address the problem of that they seem to be claiming Contractual Sum. Do we need to address this, and if so how eg. VAT etc, or is it not necessary?

Point 3 No Keeper Liability. We understand that the notice doesn't fully comply with that prescribed by PoFA 2012. However we are struggling to relate the text to our situation / notice. In particular where Schedule 4 is detailed eg. "inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay" etc as the notice does do this. Is the schedule 4 text included for reference or is it that each point must be covered in our notice. Apologies but I am struggling to sufficiently explain our lack of understanding on this one.

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

VAT isn't relevant to POPLA stage, hence why it isn't in any template POPLA appeal. And as for paragraph 9 omissions, I seem to recall there are so many holes in the NTK they use that I found it easier to just quote the entire paragraph 9 from Schedule 4 and say 'they have failed on every point' as it was easier! OK so they may have the odd word right but the point is still that most of para 9 is not covered.

That template hasn't failed yet so I doubt it will fail with you!

RobinHill

Cheers Coupon-mad, that clears that one up. I did think that you must have simply listed the whole paragraph even though the charge notice seemed to cover some of them.

Part of the penny dropped when I read through Boxingbanz's POPLA outcome and it was great reading as it fits very well with our case. I loved the bit about the PPC claiming Consideration ie. price paid for parking ... only that as per their signage you CAN'T buy any parking. Parking of any sort is only available free between certain hours. No parking is available at any other time ... even by paying for it. So how can it ever be a Contractual Sum!!

It is Damages and there's no way they can worm their way otherwise. Consequently GPEOL applies and £100 is hard / impossible to substantiate? Have I got that right?

Progressing, thanks again. Next section(s) tomorrow!!