Why are some PPCs still with the BPA?

ManxRed

TDA wrote: »

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.

That was my understanding too.

hoohoo

TDA wrote: »

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.

That is mostly correct. The defendants could appeal on all grounds permitted by the judge, but as in all cases were at liberty to ask for other grounds if they so decided.

Mr Beavis did not think it worth appealing other points for the reasons stated above. The issue of the charge kills off malign business practices for all parking companies. The issue of standing can always be fixed.

In essence, if Beavis wins, the viable business models are

1) Charge the landowner a management fee. Set charges for breach of contract to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. (And in a free car park, find a way to ensure an initial loss)

2) Charge the motorist a contractual charge, and see how long you can get away with it before the next test case to determine whether this is a disguised penalty dressed up as a contractual charge.

Marktheshark

The parking companies have very little to lose if the appeal goes against them.
It does not stop them carrying on as before, most pay up, it only really reflects on litigation of which they lose money on anyway.
They only engage litigation to frighten, forums are awash with OMG they sue you !

However as Capita are involved I would not hold out any hope of this appeal, there is a lot of money to be made by winning this appeal and the way this country is going I can see they will allow commercial penalties to become lawful.

BenefitMaster

Marktheshark wrote: »

the way this country is going I can see they will allow commercial penalties to become lawful.

I think this will go higher if the Appeal Court doesn't reverse Moloney's decision. He expects it to be reversed, that much is clear from his own ruling.

Or so say the Silks and Juniors I (still) enjoy Friday drinks with.

HO87

Getting back to the original issue, the departure of PPC's from the BPA is unlikely to see it fold. Yes, it might shrink but the BPA existed well before PPC's bloomed. Commonsense dictates that based on an admitted membership of just over 700 a majority must be non-PPC. The vast majority of LA's are members for example and whilst PPC's may supply/have supplied a very lucrative revenue stream they have also provided a substantial distraction to the BPA's other interests.

A quick check of the nominees for 2015 Parking Awards reveals, contrary to previous years, very few PPC's up for backslaps and the one repeated name - APCOA - has sizeable operations servicing LA's enforcement that sit way outside what might be described as PPC-type operations.

By contrast the IPC's existence is far more fragile. Perhaps it wasn't that shrewd of Messrs Davies and Hurley to keep their day jobs.

Coupon-mad

Marktheshark wrote: »

However as Capita are involved I would not hold out any hope of this appeal, there is a lot of money to be made by winning this appeal and the way this country is going I can see they will allow commercial penalties to become lawful.

I disagree but we'll see soon enough!