Need a little help prof of losses.

Technics

Given that the governments own guidance on the PoFA states that parking charges must be a GPEOL.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

I don't see how a keeper can be liable for charges based on commercial justification even if the driver can be. That is a possible avenue for appeal if the driver is not identified.

Northlakes

I think this is the paragraph you are referring to from the guidance.

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver"

Technics

Yes that's the one. I'd be arguing to POPLA that the CoA judgement cannot apply to the keeper. The keepers liability can only be invoked in accordance to PoFA which only allows for losses based on GPEOL. It's not guaranteed to work but it's another point in addition to all the other standard appeal points.

salmosalaris

If the CoA judgment is not appealed or an appeal is unsuccessful and you overstayed in a free car park and £100 is thought no more unconscionable or extravagant than £85 you will lose on the penalty clause / unfair term point .
Whether the PPC pays the landowner is irrelevant with regards these arguments but could help with the argument on standing .The CoA touched on this in para 9 without expressing what rights this payment conferred , the issue of standing was not under appeal .

salmosalaris

Technics wrote: »

Yes that's the one. I'd be arguing to POPLA that the CoA judgement cannot apply to the keeper. The keepers liability can only be invoked in accordance to PoFA which only allows for losses based on GPEOL. It's not guaranteed to work but it's another point in addition to all the other standard appeal points.

That is incorrect , the Act makes no mention of gpeol , merely a "relevant obligation " . The CoA judgment would seem to confirm that this charge was such

Technics

salmosalaris wrote: »

If you overstayed in a free car park and £100 is thought no more unconscionable or extravagant than £85 you will lose .
Whether the PPC pays the landowner is irrelevant regards the loss argument but could help with the argument on standing .The CoA touched on this in para 9 without expressing what rights this payment conferred , the issue of standing was not under appeal .

I don't think it is that simple. In the CoA judgement there no dispute that the defendant was driving and had entered a form of contract (or had a license) with the claimant. PPCs relying on PoFA are not in the same position. They are attempting to hold the keeper liable for the actions of the driver.

salmosalaris

Really ?
Read para 28 of the CoA judgment

Technics

salmosalaris wrote: »

That is incorrect , the Act makes no mention of gpeol , merely a "relevant obligation " . The CoA judgment would seem to confirm that this charge was such

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you make out until someone tests the theory. The rest of the line you quote from is "relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages" so it still means damages.

Captain_Krunch

Also the PO Box and address don't exist see here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/mbc-parking-admits-breach-of-company.html
MBC is another company owned by Mick Cooke of Armtrac. Same PO Box and address as Armtrac.


So you could try this


No contract with driver

Evidence in the public realm would indicate that the address used by Armtrac does not exist.


The requirements of a company under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and
Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
SCHEDULE 2 Regulations 10(1) and 13(1)

Information relating to distance and off-premises contracts
The information referred to in regulations 10(1) and 13(1) is (subject to the note at the end of this
Schedule)—
(a) the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium
of communication and to the goods or services;
(b) the identity of the trader (such as the trader’s trading name);
© the geographical address at which the trader is established and, where available, the
trader’s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, to enable the consumer to
contact the trader quickly and communicate efficiently;
(d) where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and
identity of that other trader;
(e) if different from the address provided in accordance with paragraph ©, the geographical
address of the place of business of the trader, and, where the trader acts on behalf of
another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader,
where the consumer can address any complaints;
(f) the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods
or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner
in which the price is to be calculated.
I understand that if the address is incorrect then no contract was formed between the operator and the driver.

Captain_Krunch

Technics wrote: »

I don't think it is that simple. In the CoA judgement there no dispute that the defendant was driving and had entered a form of contract (or had a license) with the claimant. PPCs relying on PoFA are not in the same position. They are attempting to hold the keeper liable for the actions of the driver.

Nice discussion but armtrac don't issue their invoices under POFA but use contract law. However their version of contract law allows them to pursue the keeper anyways.