Why are some PPCs still with the BPA?

TDA

Perhaps. But the IAS have no clout whatsoever with the government and we have seen already that, for whatever reason, the BPA do.

Come early March and the Beavis decision the PPC's will either:

a) Be able to carry on as usual
b) Have to change their business model to charging their clients a fixed annual management fee with the actual charges being reduced to some nominal amount actually reflective of any loss, should they wish to survive

If it's the former, there's no need to jump ship to the IAS from the BPA as POPLA won't be able to rule favourably to Motorist's on the GPEOL issue, and you're better off retaining membership of an ATA with a degree of influence with the powers that be.

If it's the latter, again there's no need to jump ship to the IAS because they can't overrule a Court of Appeal decision so the entire benefit of joining them is gone. Again, better off belonging to an ATA with influence.

There's a good reason the likes of Parking Eye haven't left the BPA for the IAS yet.

nigelbb

Don't forget that private parking & the AOS scheme is only a part of the operations of the BPA Ltd. Every single local authority plus many other public bodies (Universities, NHS Trusts etc) are also members of the BPA Ltd Their scope is the whole spectrum of public & private parking. I imagine that many (most?) of the respectable members will be delighted at the departure of all the sleazy ex-clampers to the IPC.

BenefitMaster

ParkingEye haven't left because the BPA needs them to win Beavis.

atilla

Am i missing something here?
My understanding is the PE/Beavis case is for 'car parking' where the parking company have genuine, legal, documented rights to control the land (PE paying a £1K a week for the priviledge)...and not for the classic scammer simply claiming to have the right?

ManxRed

atilla wrote: »

Am i missing something here?
My understanding is the PE/Beavis case is for 'car parking' where the parking company have genuine, legal, documented rights to control the land (PE paying a £1K a week for the priviledge)...and not for the classic scammer simply claiming to have the right?

This is correct, however the determination on whether there can be a so-called 'commercially justifiable penalty' is the killer point that the BPA hope will open the floodgates.

This would open the floodgates to ALL contract law, so it's a pretty big gate.

You're right though, it appears to assume some degree of landholder rights in this particular case. Dunno if that will form part of any decision, should it go in PE's favour.

TDA

atilla wrote: »

Am i missing something here?
My understanding is the PE/Beavis case is for 'car parking' where the parking company have genuine, legal, documented rights to control the land (PE paying a £1K a week for the priviledge)...and not for the classic scammer simply claiming to have the right?

I've seen this said so often, and I still don't understand where it's coming from. The Beavis appeal has nothing to do with whether any contract between a PPC and the landowner gives the former the authority to issue parking charges for breach of contract.

Leave to appeal was given on the single point of whether the charge in question was an unenforceable penalty, or whether it could be considered commercially justifiable.

Even if Parking Eye win the appeal, if they don't have a valid contract in place with the landowner that gives them the authority to operate on the land in question then they are stuffed.

ManxRed wrote:

This would open the floodgates to ALL contract law, so it's a pretty big gate.

Possibly. It would largely depend on the ratio of the decision.

Equally as important as the ruling in a case is the reasoning behind the ruling, as that is often what allows you to distinguish (or not as the case may be) other future cases.

As I've stated previously I'm not sure that we will see these sort of penalties becoming enforceable in every area of contract law for the reasons I highlighted in post #3 of this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67130784#Comment_67130784

bod1467

atilla wrote: »

Am i missing something here?
My understanding is the PE/Beavis case is for 'car parking' where the parking company have genuine, legal, documented rights to control the land (PE paying a £1K a week for the priviledge)...and not for the classic scammer simply claiming to have the right?

Am I right in remembering that it has subsequently been shown that PE pulled the wool over HHJ Maloney's eyes over their contract giving them the rights to issue claims in their own name?

bargepole

atilla wrote: »

Am i missing something here?
My understanding is the PE/Beavis case is for 'car parking' where the parking company have genuine, legal, documented rights to control the land (PE paying a £1K a week for the priviledge)...and not for the classic scammer simply claiming to have the right?

This £1K a week is, in my view, a red herring which is distracting people from the real issue.


Many PPCs pay the landowner a 'commission' of, say, £10 per paid ticket. All that's happening here is that PE are fixing that commission at a pre-set level in advance.


It doesn't give them any more rights over the land than at any other site, and the signage still says that 'parking is at the discretion of the site', i.e. the landowner. PE have no people on the ground, and take no responsibility for maintenance of the surface, or liability for any personal injury in the car park.


The substantive issue in the Appeal case is whether a penalty imposed on a consumer by a limited company, can be allowed to stand due to commercial justification.

hoohoo

bod1467 wrote: »

Am I right in remembering that it has subsequently been shown that PE pulled the wool over HHJ Maloney's eyes over their contract giving them the rights to issue claims in their own name?

This is correct. However, Mr Beavis decided only to appeal on the penalty issue on the grounds that if the appeal is won, it kills unfair practices and the 'free management' business model stone dead.

The right to issue claims can be fixed by altering contracts.

The way that they deceived HHJ Moloney was to provide a redacted contract which hid clause 3.11 and 8.

Clause 3.11 explains PE collect the money for breach of contract on behalf of the landowner (and thus are an agent).

Clause 8 explains the landowner has access to a web portal where they can view tickets issued and paid (and thus invalidates HHJ Moloney's conclusion based on the landowner not knowing how many tickets were paid)

TDA

hoohoo wrote: »

This is correct. However, Mr Beavis decided only to appeal on the penalty issue on the grounds that if the appeal is won, it kills unfair practices and the 'free management' business model stone dead.

I was under the impression the decision on what issues to appeal on was at the discretion of the Judge and that he granted it only on the penalty issue.