Parking Eye Invoice at Macclesfield Hospital

dga1965

sadly becoming all to aware of what we are all up against!!

dga1965

Hi again,


just read on the newbies sticky post #3 about referring back here for the latest advice on POPLA appeals. now about to appeal my wifes spec invoice" and before drafting anything would appreciate any advice. Thanks again.

salmosalaris

You need to distinguish your case from Beavis .
Para 44 and 45 of the CoA judgment show that in Beavis this is not an economic or financial contract as it is a free car park . The contract is designed to deter motorists from overstaying .
In your scenario the contract is a straightforward financial one , therefore damages for breach must still represent actual loss or a gpeol .If you'd paid the tariff PE were happy for you to park . Para 47 of the CoA judgment makes plain that the PCN is an unenforceable penalty because it is a large sum of money immediately payable for failing to pay a small amount . The only function of their charge is to deter non payment of the parking tariff , it is consequently an unenforceable penalty .
As yours is a financial contract it is easy to assess the loss , it is clearly only the parking tariff . Para 25 makes plain that PE make no direct loss so if they try to include any running costs etc that they would also have incurred in Beavis they clearly can't be included in any GPEOL as the CoA concluded they were not losses

dga1965

thanks Salmosalaris, that's really usefull. guess I can quote your text above in my popla appeal?

Ivor_Pecheque

Here's the "circling" judgement...

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

PS, wonder what these people are making of it all ? http://www.eastcheshire.nhs.uk/news/East-Cheshire-NHS-Trust-among-top-five-in-England-for-cancer-patient-experience.htm

The_Deep

add an extra point that says that the driver driving round a car park is not parking and the time purchased for actual parking was correct,

Says a judge

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

You need to distinguish your case from Beavis .

No commercial justification at a hospital surely

salmosalaris

Commercial justification is based on the need to make spaces available for patients/visitors by deterring abuse and to enable PE to operate and hence provide the service .
This is easily rebutted .
If a non patient/visitor paid to park they would take up a space that should go to patients/visitors . The deterrent therefore only exists to deter non payment and is consequently a penalty . There consequently can be no commercial justification for such an operation that does not achieve the very thing that may justify it ..

The_Deep

This surely must apply also to own space, leaving site, upside down/dislodged permits, parking outside bay, and (arguably) BB spaces. It narrows the field a bit.

Why therefore are people saying that GPEOL is a dead horse?

dga1965

just to be clear I am appealing the invoice from post #1 not the most recent one my wife has received!


Thanks though for the advice - I am of course going to need this too!

dga1965

can I just clarify how the POPLA appeal works.


I submit my appeal with the advice given on these forums vis a vis GEOPL, RK, signage etc.


What happens then? do I get a big bundle of paper work from PE and have to respond to that?


Given that, in my case, it was a paying car park and advice on here is saying that Beavis is not relevant as that was a free car park, do I need to put in any rebuttal of Beavis or, given that its going to appeal, leave it out in the hope, expectation or whatever that he will win the appeal. I can see an advantage to putting it in and leaving it out. If POPLA are going to wait for the Beavis appeal and POPLA defer all appeals till then their system will surely grind to a halt given the propensity of the PPS's to reject all appeals?