Have Parking Eye won (or do they think they have)?

ezerscrooge

I only ask because for the past few months I've been giving the standard template to people who have received their 'charge notices'.

All have been successfully cancelled, but not anymore.

The latest has been refused the appeal for overstaying in a free car park and a POPLA code issued.

Naturally it will be going to POPLA with the full set of appeal points.

Just wondered if anyone has any info on PEs change of tack.

Umkomaas

And POPLA is 'staying' adjuducations in anticipation of Beavis.

Wrong! These should be determined on the basis of contract law as it stands/stood at the time of the parking event.

Otherwise Fred Talbot would have received 14 years based on today's (albeit crim) law, rather than the 2.5 years (x2) per offence based on 1980's law.

salmosalaris

Umkomaas wrote: »

And POPLA is 'staying' adjuducations in anticipation of Beavis.

Wrong! These should be determined on the basis of contract law as it stands/stood at the time of the parking event.

Otherwise Fred Talbot would have received 14 years based on today's (albeit crim) law, rather than the 2.5 years (x2) per offence based on 1980's law.

I don't think that's quite right . The COA is determining how the law stands presently , nothing is being changed . Hence if penalties designed to deter breach are deemed to be commercially justified and enforceable in their judgment then they always have been in identical circumstances

Marktheshark

They win every day, most people pay up, again and again and again.
If the present expansion of PPC tickets continue the average driver will have 3 a year to pay in 2016

Umkomaas

salmosalaris wrote: »

I don't think that's quite right . The COA is determining how the law stands presently , nothing is being changed . Hence if penalties designed to deter breach are deemed to be commercially justified and enforceable in their judgment then they always have been .

But I thought current contract law in this context was influenced by 'Dunlop' (and others)? Am I mistaken? Happy to be corrected. Won't the current CoA confirm this, or re-write things?

matttye

Umkomaas wrote: »

And POPLA is 'staying' adjuducations in anticipation of Beavis.

Wrong! These should be determined on the basis of contract law as it stands/stood at the time of the parking event.

Otherwise Fred Talbot would have received 14 years based on today's (albeit crim) law, rather than the 2.5 years (x2) per offence based on 1980's law.

Could have received 14 years but probably wouldn't.

Half_way

Marktheshark wrote: »

They win every day, most people pay up, again and again and again.
If the present expansion of PPC tickets continue the average driver will have 3 a year to[strike] pay [/strike] successfully challenge in 2016

Corrected.

One thing about the Beavis case is which ever way it goes it could be said to only apply to that specific car park - or in car parks where the PPC pays the land owner for fishing rights.
So even if PE loose they win - as they will say it ( the judgement) only applies in certain car parks.
I would be surprised if the same set up existed in all of their other car parks such as Morrisons, ALDI, NHS properties and so on.
So for a vast majority of sites it will just be business as usual .
This makes the POPLA decision to stay all PE cases even more absurd.

Dear POPLA assessor - I am fully aware of the pending Beavis vs Parking eye case and I am also aware that this case may be specific to one particular site.
Unless parking eye or the site owners of the car park where my vehicle was parked can show that the same conditions apply there then I expect you to process this challenge without delay.

Umkomaas

matttye wrote: »

Could have received 14 years but probably wouldn't.

But possibly more than 2x2.5? :cool:

salmosalaris

Half_way wrote: »

Corrected.

One thing about the Beavis case is which ever way it goes it could be said to only apply to that specific car park - or in car parks where the PPC pays the land owner for fishing rights.
So even if PE loose they win - as they will say it ( the judgement) only applies in certain car parks.
I would be surprised if the same set up existed in all of their other car parks such as Morrisons, ALDI, NHS properties and so on.
So for a vast majority of sites it will just be business as usual .
This makes the POPLA decision to stay all PE cases even more absurd.

Dear POPLA assessor - I am fully aware of the pending Beavis vs Parking eye case and I am also aware that this case may be specific to one particular site.
Unless parking eye or the site owners of the car park where my vehicle was parked can show that the same conditions apply there then I expect you to process this challenge without delay.

I think the fact that PE pay the landowner is an unimportant irrelevance , it's of little difference to a kickback arrangement in advance . I'd hang my hat on the majority of DJ's allowing penalties across the board in the wake of a PE victory regardless of how the site operates. Similarly if they lose PE will struggle to argue their charges are enforceable simply because the site has a different set up

Half_way

I'd hang my hat on the majority of DJ's allowing penalties across the board

That is one possibility - it could be more than just the parking industry cashing in with commercially justified penalties, restaurants, mobile phone company's, dentists, educational sector, health sector to name but a few.
although that all depends on whats said when the judgement is finally handed down

bargepole

ezerscrooge wrote: »

Just wondered if anyone has any info on PEs change of tack.

I don't have any inside info on this, but from PE's point of view it makes commercial sense.


Until a few weeks ago, any first appeal sent in which said that the charge was not a GPEOL was routinely accepted by PE, and the charge cancelled, because they knew they wouldn't win at POPLA.


Since the COA hearing, and pending judgment being handed down, they have been declining such appeals, and issuing POPLA codes, knowing that the POPLA decision will be deferred until the COA result is in.


If Beavis wins, they simply won't bother sending evidence packs to POPLA, so the ticket gets automatically cancelled at no cost to them.


If it goes PE's way, they are gambling that the POPLA assessors will follow the COA judgment, although that may depend on how the decision is worded.

salmosalaris wrote: »

I think the fact that PE pay the landowner is an unimportant irrelevance , it's of little difference to a kickback arrangement in advance .

Exactly right, this is a red herring to which people are attaching far too much importance, although not the COA judges. Most PPCs pay a commission to the landowner, typically £10 or £15 per paid ticket. Here PE are simply guaranteeing the commission as a fixed sum in advance. This won't be a distinguishing feature, whichever way the judgment goes.