Catoninetails in da house!

ManxRed

The only service they provide to landowners is a deterrent to people who might abuse the car park.

Of course, catoninetails may not come out and say this, because of course, the moment this is admitted openly then the words 'penalty' and 'punitive' are immediately associated. And quite correctly. The BPA say the ticket pricing is set at the levels of Council tickets, which are, of course, penalties.

Obviously, once such a business model is in place, then PPC's quickly realise that their profits are influenced by the number of tickets issued so they dream up 'terms and conditions' designed to optimise the number of tickets issued/paid, and ignore their fundamental target of 'abusers' and just ticket anyone. People parking in their own residential spaces (for which they own the freehold or leasehold), people visiting an ANPR car park twice (and please don't tell me that the high number of tickets we see issued on here for double visits are all 'errors' in the ANPR system, I wasn't born yesterday), genuine shoppers/patrons spending a few minutes more in a store than the ridiculously low time allowance gives them, I could go on and on.

Also, the obvious general ignorance of the public when it comes to civil law: I would think it extremely difficult to deny that this is deliberate exploitation on the part of PPCs when we see letters on a daily basis that lie about what is contained in the Protection of Freedoms Act, and talk about 'obtaining' CCJs and negatively impacting Credit Ratings when the truth is far from it. It might not be illegal to send letters containing such blatant inaccuracies, but are you genuinely going to say that this is either a 'mistake' or else all perfectly acceptable tactics in going about your daily business?

Don't insult our intelligence by even attempting to say that this is all perfectly and morally above board.

trisontana

Even when a PPC loses they won't accept the decision , as this news article shows:-
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/former-stockport-solicitor-takes-infamous-8867189

An Excel spokesman said: “Although the appeal to POPLA was successful we do not agree with the decision.
“Our charges represent a genuine sum for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of non-compliance of the ‘parking contract’.

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

Even when a PPC loses they won't accept the decision , as this news article shows:-
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/former-stockport-solicitor-takes-infamous-8867189

An Excel spokesman said: “Although the appeal to POPLA was successful we do not agree with the decision.
“Our charges represent a genuine sum for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of non-compliance of the ‘parking contract’.

Well there's not much that Excel can do about that, is there?

Oh, hold on, just join the IPC and never have to have any of those worries ever again!

The_Deep

“It is unfortunate Mr Pyle feels he should be treated as a special case and be allowed to abuse car parks.”

Surely this is libellous?

BlackSpangle

ManxRed wrote: »

The only service they provide to landowners is a deterrent to people who might abuse the car park.

Of course, catoninetails may not come out and say this, because of course, the moment this is admitted openly then the words 'penalty' and 'punitive' are immediately associated.

And if I understand the Makdessi case correctly (although I probably don't), if the predominant purpose of even a "commercial justification" claim is to deter, then the claim is a penalty and becomes unenforceable.

So, even if Beavis were to go PE's way, it does not give carte blanche for PPCs to dispense with GPEOL. Indeed, providing a GPEOL is considered the best way to show that a claim is not penal in nature.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

“It is unfortunate Mr Pyle feels he should be treated as a special case and be allowed to abuse car parks.”

Surely this is libellous?

He's the retired Sol; I'm sure he'll be well on the case if you're correct TD.

Unfortunately his helping hand offer for future cases will need to concentrate away from GPEOL as Excel are now with the IPC, probably to avoid GPEOL.

Mr Pyle will need to turn his legal brains onto a different channel to have any similar success with the IAS.

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

He's the retired Sol; I'm sure he'll be well on the case if you're correct TD.

Unfortunately his helping hand offer for future cases will need to concentrate away from GPEOL as Excel are now with the IPC, probably to avoid GPEOL.

Mr Pyle will need to turn his legal brains onto a different channel to have any similar success with the IAS.

GPEOL is still the law the IAS kangaroo court notwithstanding & the Excel spokesperson confirmed this “Our charges represent a genuine sum for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of non-compliance of the ‘parking contract’."

I suspect that the IPC will not survive as a ATA if they persist with the IAS. The blatant inequity of their appeals system is obvious particularly as while POPLA is by no means perfect & lacks the transparency of PATAS it is a million times more equitable to appellants than the IAS. It was never the government's intention that there should be multiple appeals systems with differing degrees of fairness. The IAS decisions are becoming so farcically unfair that must be causing embarrassment even to the DVLA.

ManxRed

My worry with the IPC is that it is simply putting in place a model whereby a higher proportion of people pay up without the need for Court Claims. And that their members are simply happy to take the money and run.

Of course, if this turns out to be true then 'ignore' suddenly becomes fashionable again, and maybe they rethink at that point.

But for now, I suspect their 'pay up' ratio is higher than the BPA's due to the added proportion of people who stump up following the independent appeal rejection, the ratio of which is clearly higher than POPLA's.

Castle

BlackSpangle wrote: »

And if I understand the Makdessi case correctly (although I probably don't), if the predominant purpose of even a "commercial justification" claim is to deter, then the claim is a penalty and becomes unenforceable.

So, even if Beavis were to go PE's way, it does not give carte blanche for PPCs to dispense with GPEOL. Indeed, providing a GPEOL is considered the best way to show that a claim is not penal in nature.

In Makdessi v Cavendish:-
"The Court of Appeal found that the clauses were unenforceable penalties. They weren’t genuine pre-estimates of loss, and weren’t commercially justified."
http://www.freshfields.com/uploadedFiles/SiteWide/Knowledge/CDG_Commercil%20Law%20Update%20Feb.pdf

What's more interesting is that Cavendish is taking this to the Supreme Court;
http://www.wilberforce.co.uk/case-study/cavendish-square-holding-bv/
So the Beavis decision may not be the end of the matter!

TDA

Castle wrote: »

In Makdessi v Cavendish:-
"The Court of Appeal found that the clauses were unenforceable penalties. They weren’t genuine pre-estimates of loss, and weren’t commercially justified."
http://www.freshfields.com/uploadedFiles/SiteWide/Knowledge/CDG_Commercil%20Law%20Update%20Feb.pdf

What's more interesting is that Cavendish is taking this to the Supreme Court;
http://www.wilberforce.co.uk/case-study/cavendish-square-holding-bv/
So the Beavis decision may not be the end of the matter!

Surely this can only be of benefit to the PPCs. What happens if the Supreme Court reversed the CoA decision and states that a clause can be commercially justifiable even where the predominant purpose is to deter?

If they upheld the decision then it's simply 'as you were'.