Paying for parking in the first place

Fight_the_good_fight

Can not be theft as definition says "appropriates property belonging to another," so would have to be tangible item.

Much more likely to be a fraud offence obtaining services as you may be able to prove the "mens rea " of the driver continually parking and intentionally not paying the fee

Jaystoke

Wouldn't advocate this at all. As a fair, decent and honest person, I will always pay for the licence to park for my requirements. If, however, I breach those conditions, I am more than happy to pay a fair amount based on actual losses caused by my actions. If they stuck a bit of paper on my car saying 'You've stayed over your permitted time period, pay us an extra £2.00 to cover this' I would be more than happy to do so.

What I absolutely refuse to pay is between 30 and 50 times more than this amount to cover the companies costs that they purposely choose to incur.

Has anything been appealed just on this basis at all? Ie - that any alleged loss at the time that the breach was discovered was either zero, nominal or negligable; and that whilst the Landowner does have the right to pursue any loss, the extra losses deemed to be incurred through the PPC's decision to issue a PCN plus all the other followup processes incur far higher, disproportionate costs that he then seeks reimbursement for?

I'm sure there will be case law for a claimant not being awarded damages and costs that he could have reasonably avoided through other, reasonable actions compared to the initial loss.

Umkomaas

Has anything been appealed just on this basis at all? Ie - that any alleged loss at the time that the breach was discovered was either zero, nominal or negligable; and that whilst the Landowner does have the right to pursue any loss, the extra losses deemed to be incurred through the PPC's decision to issue a PCN plus all the other followup processes incur far higher, disproportionate costs that he then seeks reimbursement for?

Wow, you're obviously new here!

Almost every thread is based around this premise - no GPEOL. Have a read of the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky.

bonj

Hot_Bring wrote: »

You are depriving them of the fee for the service so it is theft. Now the 'penalties' they attempt to charge if you don't pay are immoral and unlawful.

Let's say you are a builder and you build a wall for a client. They pay you up front for the materials but then don't pay you for the labour .... ever. They've not deprived you of a physical product so you'll be OK with this ?

no but they've actually done some work, so couldn't have at the same time been doing some work for someone else, so the GPEOL is the fact that the builder could have built a wall for someone else and got paid.

But unless the carpark was chock full, someone else could still have parked there and the PPC would still get the money from them. The 'illegal download of MP3' is more equivalent analogy.

Jaystoke

Umkomaas wrote: »

Wow, you're obviously new here!

Almost every thread is based around this premise - no GPEOL. Have a read of the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky.

No...not in the sense of no GPEOL - as even then, a number of the appeal decisions would allow between £20 and £30 for the time involved in dealing and processing the PCN's but accepted the appeal as they include costs for general management; professional fees; POPLA appeals; internal appeals etc.

What I'm talking about is the decision by the Operator to issue the PCN in the first instance, thus decided to incur even those costs, just in order to recover any actual initial loss caused by the breach in the first instance. For example, if it could be proven that there was lost ticket revenue of £1.00 because somebody else couldn't park in that bay; is it even right or proportional to then purposely incur those initial £20/£30 of losses just to recover such a small sum.

I'm actually looking for other strings to add to the bow here, in that as well as the Parking Charge not being a GPEOL; the Operator had reasonable alternatives to mitigate further loss after the initial breach but chose himself to incur them, and therefore cannot expect the appellant to pay for that.

Bringing this matter through, even if the Parking Charge was only stated as being £30 to cover for the cost of issuing and administrating that PCN - if a reasonable alternative was available in relation to the initial loss, the Operator should take it. If it could be admitted by any PPC who set their charges that 'low' that they must issue the PCN to deter any future breach of contract, then drivers would be able to even appeal that on the basis that even such a smaller amount is still, indeed, a penalty clause and not enforceable.

There's a far bigger picture than just the GPEOL and 70% of the charge being a penalty charge which is not enforceable - and I'm sure there can be a way to have the formal recognition that 99% of the charge is a penalty charge. We all know it, but there's nothing that I can see through all the POPLA appeals which does so.

bazster

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Let's say you are a builder and you build a wall for a client. They pay you up front for the materials but then don't pay you for the labour .... ever. They've not deprived you of a physical product so you'll be OK with this ?

If you go to the police about it they'll tell you "that would be a civil matter sir".

bonj

Jaystoke wrote: »

I'm actually looking for other strings to add to the bow here, in that as well as the Parking Charge not being a GPEOL; the Operator had reasonable alternatives to mitigate further loss after the initial breach but chose himself to incur them, and therefore cannot expect the appellant to pay for that.

... including sly ones.... such as - not providing convenient methods of payment?
In other words, if I'm a PPC, I could take credit cards, but why would I bother when i might make more in "fines" from the people that don't pay than those that do?

I appreciate this is talking about the 'initial' loss vs 'further' loss but might still apply? he still "chose" to suffer the loss.

The_Deep

In free car parks were an overstay is prosecuted, and that time is spent shopping, eating, watching a film, etc., there is no initial loss unless facilities are provided to pay for the extra time parked.

By failing to provide such means of extra payment PPCs are in fact on very shaky ground even to ask for that small amount which they think that they are owed.

The car parks are there for the benefit of the customer, not to enrich the PPC.

Jaystoke

bonj wrote: »

... including sly ones.... such as - not providing convenient methods of payment?
In other words, if I'm a PPC, I could take credit cards, but why would I bother when i might make more in "fines" from the people that don't pay than those that do?

I appreciate this is talking about the 'initial' loss vs 'further' loss but might still apply? he still "chose" to suffer the loss.

Yes, they still chose to issue the PCN when they could have done nothing - exactly the same as if the 'enforcement officer' hadnt been on the prowl at that exact time.

Or, for the sake of 7 pence for an A4 black & white photocopy, simply gave a reminder to park in future in accordance with the terms and conditions; but as no loss is recorded, they will not issue a Parking Charge Notice.

Jaystoke

The_Deep wrote: »

In free car parks were an overstay is prosecuted, and that time is spent shopping, eating, watching a film, etc., there is no initial loss unless facilities are provided to pay for the extra time parked.

By failing to provide such means of extra payment PPCs are in fact on very shaky ground even to ask for that small amount which they think that they are owed.

The car parks are there for the benefit of the customer, not to enrich the PPC.

Exactly, so why take the decision to issue a PCN in the first place and even incur the losses for that time? They are the ones who unnecessarily create this additional loss and then want to claim it back (plus lots extra on top too!). No mitigation of further loss following the breach - therefore not allowed to claim it back