Oooops

Howard_Ino

I have a friend whos had a ticket from Smart Parking and appealed with the template from here having just got the ticket, she didn't wait for the ntk.


Smart have written back rejecting this and issued a popla code, they say that the bpa removed the requirement for a gpeol so the charge is upheld.


Im going to help her with a popla appeal but am not sure how appealing before getting the ntk effects things as I cannot find anything in the stickies.

Redx

same popla appeals as normal, except no pofa 2012 appeal points as its no longer involved

so a non-POFA 2012 popla appeal

see the link in the newbies STICKY thread and adapt one (post #3)

Umkomaas

they say that the bpa removed the requirement for a gpeol so the charge is upheld

Well, isn't that so good of the BPA.

Unfortunately contract law begs to differ. Isn't that unfortunate for Smart.

Half_way

and dont forget that the BPA limited, is not a regulatory authority, in fact it is no authority at all.
What it is is a private trade association and its main aim is to further the interests of its members and a vast majority of the membership is made up of private so called parking companies.

Fergie76

BPA's take on GPEOL:

While we are aware of a number of cases at POPLA where the appeal has been upheld on behalf of the motorist on the basis of Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss (GPEOL), none have been returned to us by POPLA as we contend that as long as the PCN price does not exceed the amount laid out in Clause 19.5 of the Code of Practice, no breach has occurred. Our position reflects the determination of HHJ Moloney in the Parking Eye vs Beavis case which was heard last autumn.
You may well be aware that this case is going to the High Court of Appeal in February and it is hoped that the decision of the Judges will set precedent and bring clarity to all.
Our position on GPEOL and the wording of Clause 19.5 will remain unaltered until the result of the Appeal case is published.

HO87

In other words:

We do nothing to seriously disabuse the public of the notion that we are a regulator unless they write to us and ask that we act on their behalf. At that point we will tell them

Our sole concern is maintaining and nurturing the rich seam of public ignorance and official inaction and disinterest that our members exploit to our mutual and substantial gain.

If that requires that we ignore hundreds of years of established and settled law then so be it. The law isn't relevant if there is money to be made.

trisontana

"While we are aware of a number of cases at POPLA where the appeal has been upheld on behalf of the motorist on the basis of Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss"

Not just a "number", but hundred of cases.

"we contend that as long as the PCN price does not exceed the amount laid out in Clause 19.5 of the Code of Practice, no breach has occurred."

Except that the amount is just a made-up figure that bears not relation to any loss caused, and was only chosen so that it could mimic penalties imposed by councils.

Fergie76

trisontana wrote: »

"While we are aware of a number of cases at POPLA where the appeal has been upheld on behalf of the motorist on the basis of Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss"

Not just a "number", but hundred of cases.

"we contend that as long as the PCN price does not exceed the amount laid out in Clause 19.5 of the Code of Practice, no breach has occurred."

Except that the amount is just a made-up figure that bears not relation to any loss caused, and was only chosen so that it could mimic penalties imposed by councils.

Made these exact points to the BPA:

It is my belief, that it is not just a number of cases, but the majority of cases that are won at POPLA by registered keepers, where they state that the charge is not a GPEOL.

To simply state that the as long as the amount does not exceed clause 19.5, no breach has occurred is wrong. Clause 19.5 states:

[FONT=&quot]If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance. [/FONT]

As I have shown with the GPEOL that I was supplied by the hospital, this is not a GPEOL as it includes normal business costs. It also does not take into account the cost to the Private Parking Company (PPC), should the registered keeper/driver pay without appealing.

I have also seen a document from a BPA Council Meeting at 1030 on 6 Jun 12, where parking companies discuss this charge and it appears not to be based on GPEOL at all, but what the PPC’s feel they can get away with charging the public. Two quotes from the document that jump out at me are:

The current Code’s recommended maximum charge for a parking ticket of £150 is seen by many as excessive, and whilst only a small percentage of members charge this maximum it is seen by the public as ‘the parking charge’ that is made by all AOS members. It is also £20 higher than the maximum statutory penalty charge made in the London area – currently the highest statutory charge in the country.

Currently only one ticket in every three are paying. This means the pcn has to be high because you have to issue three pcn to get one to pay.

You cannot base your maximum GPEOL on a council’s penalty charge as the council’s charge is just that, a penalty. And as for needing to charge a £100 as only one in three people, is just ludicrous. One person should not and cannot compensate a PPC for other people not paying.

And their reply:

[FONT=&quot]Our position on the amount of the Parking Charge is outlined comprehensively within Clause 19.5 where we state that it should be ‘proportionate and commercially justifiable’ and no more than £100. This position reflects the determination of HHJ Moloney in the Parking Eye vs Beavis case which as you will doubtless be aware will be going to the High Court of Appeal next month – again once this has been concluded, there will be clarity for all. While the Moloney judgment does not set precedent, we contend that it is persuasive enough to support the position within this clause of the Code. Like you we await the Court of Appeal with much interest as it will be a watershed moment for the sector. As the Code is a living document we will seek to make any necessary amendments as soon after the result of the case is published as possible.[/FONT]

trisontana

They fail to mention that the Beavis case is not the run-of-mill parking situation in as much as PE pay the landowner £1,000 per week to "manage" the car park. In the vast majority of car-parks this is not the case.

trubster

trisontana wrote: »

They fail to mention that the Beavis case is not the run-of-mill parking situation in as much as PE pay the landowner £1,000 per week to "manage" the car park. In the vast majority of car-parks this is not the case.

If Beavis loses, I can see a lot of PPC's crawling out of the woodwork saying the same (We pay to "Manage") TBH, IMO the amount paid wouldn't make much difference if the judgement allows the "Commercial Justification"

I wouldn't put it past the PPC's to start charging and give it back through a back hander in some way. (Like Ransomes)

I think the above may explain why so many contract's are not shown, or are sent to popla heavily redacted.

Howard_Ino

Sorry I don't know if its just me being thick but I cant find any appeals in the stickies #3


Its saying this...


ALWAYS USE POPLA IF YOUR TICKET IS FROM A BPA MEMBER! WE WIN THESE APPEALS HERE. ANOTHER OPTION IS TO USE A FIRM WHICH WILL APPEAL IT CHEAPLY FOR YOU (SOME WILL REFUND IF THEY LOSE) OR CONTACT THE BMPA (A MOTORISTS' FIGHTBACK CHARITY) FOR ADVICE:

Looks like a missing link to me??