"Not genuine pre-estimate of loss" is still a strong argument

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

Likewise for my hotel analogy. Would a sign behind the reception desk allow the hotel to charge 20x the room price because I didn't vacate my room until 15:00 rather than midday. To make an even more exact analogy the 'fine' of 20x the room rate would be the same whether I checked out ten minutes or ten hours late.

But it's neither a hotel nor restaurant we are dealing with but a parking charge that is a penalty which has been deemed fair by the CoA. Hopefully, the reasoning can be challenged by a barrister in the Supreme Court picking up and targeting on where the CoA judges and the original judge have erred.

Until then, GPEOL may still be used, but it is not the silver bullet that we all used to rely on and much more concentration needs to be put on the validity and extent of the PPC/Client contract and proper evidential use of the failure of the signage, rather than the unspecified claims that the signs or NtK were wrong without saying why. Also, where the client is NOT the landowner, the PPC needs to be held to account to produce the lease that allows the leaseholding PPC client the right to make charges from the landowner.

The point of the CoA ruling is that the motorist may be penalised up to, so far, £100 but that is dependant upon a proper licence/contract being in force, and that, in turn, we should argue, is reliant on the PPC following all of the provisions of POFA and its own trade association. If they fail - then unfair contract could apply.

OrdinaryPerson

Shell2015 wrote: »

I think it is also quite safe to say that people would be much more likely to pay up without a fuss in this situation.

£20-25 at NTK stage and say £15 for payment upon getting the windscreen PCN would be reasonable considering at that stage the costs are less.

Frankly in most situations unless there had been a significant error in the issue of the PCN a lot of people would pay £15 just to make it go away. I think the PPC's missed a trick there, all the £85-100 charges have done, is push motorists to the point they are pushing back.

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me with the government consultation they are heading fast towards their demise much as they did previously as clampers.

TDA wrote: »

Right so, in other words, it's not a very effective deterrent?

I disagree with TDA.

Providing that there isn't a problem with signage , people in their right mind would choose to pay £3 instead of £25, so £25 is already a deterent that works for people in their right mind.

If people are more ikely to fight a charge of £100, that doesn't means £25 a not very effecive deterent.

The other thing is if a charged based on a GPEOL which includes recovery costs comes to £25 then £25 means on average there is no loss for the operators.

Let's not forget that the Government's guidance on PoFA says "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss."

TDA

OrdinaryPerson wrote: »

I disagree with TDA.

Providing that there isn't a problem with signage , people in their right mind would choose to pay £3 instead of £25, so £25 is already a deterrent that works for people in their right mind.

In some situations, but not where you know you won't get caught 9 out of 10 times. It might work as a deterrent for those who might not otherwise pay who are genuine shoppers. Less so for those abusing the system for cheap all day parking (and despite what others suggest, this goes on more than you might think - parking is at a premium and if people have to park to get to work, a lot of them will abuse the system if they can. I certainly wasn't the only one going from my car to the train station without paying when commuting from the local car park).

Also not sure why this £3 figure keeps being bandied around? I don't know anywhere round me that charges so little for a days parking (you'd struggle to get more than 2 hours for that rate!), and if I travel the 30 minutes into London it's even more expensive.

Shell2015

TDA wrote: »

In some situations, but not where you know you won't get caught 9 out of 10 times. It might work as a deterrent for those who might not otherwise pay who are genuine shoppers. Less so for those abusing the system for cheap all day parking (and despite what others suggest, this goes on more than you might think - parking is at a premium and if people have to park to get to work, a lot of them will abuse the system if they can. I certainly wasn't the only one going from my car to the train station without paying when commuting from the local car park).

Also not sure why this £3 figure keeps being bandied around? I don't know anywhere round me that charges so little for a days parking (you'd struggle to get more than 2 hours for that rate!), and if I travel the 30 minutes into London it's even more expensive.

That figure came from me I believe (cause up north we are all poor), but as also mentioned the £25 figure was based around that charged.

I also stated that in other areas the charge would have to be increased, london for example... well I could not comment I have never taken my car down.

However Edinburgh is ~£20 a day in street parking I think, so there you are perhaps talking about £40-45?

Marktheshark

The upside is, if they do win, there is no limit on a Commercially justified charge and they will really go for it.
If anything will kill the PPC industry it will be its own greed which will eventually make the docile apathetic public wake up and through neccasity of needing the money to eat will learn by example to avoid business using theses shysters and ultimately retailers will be forced to boot them out or go bust.

With this in mind I am not too sure them "winning" will be a bad thing and will hasten their own demise.

TDA

Shell2015 wrote: »

However Edinburgh is ~£20 a day in street parking I think, so there you are perhaps talking about £40-45?

That expensive? that's not a million miles away from parts of London. Well if £3 required a deterrent of £25, then £20 would surely require a deterrent of £100? Certainly LA charges in parts of London can be very high (I've seen them at £135).

I think if I lived in Edinburgh and the charge was £40 where £20 was the day parking cost I'd chance my arm on the basis that you're probably only going to get max one ticket every three times and it's far cheaper!

OrdinaryPerson

OrdinaryPerson wrote: »

Your question is not based on correct facts.

If someone doesn't pay for a P&D ticket, say £3, then they should have to pay

£3 for unpaid ticket
£5-10 for DVLA look up fee, cost in sending out NTK
£10-20 estimated cost in recovering the two items above

So the total they should have to pay is about £25, which is worth prusuing. Don't forget that the estimated cost for pursuing this £25 has been rolled into it.

And having to pay £25 is enough deterent for people to buy the £3 ticket.

I don't see any convincing argument to say that it has to be £100 instead of £25 to deter, or it has to be £100 instead of £25 to be worth pursuing. If on average the cost to pursue is £15 then £25 is worth pursuing.

I think the judges have been very sloppy.

I also used the £3 figure. I was thinking of £3 for an hour's parking.

With camera controlled car parks people don't get away 9 out of 10 times anyway.

OrdinaryPerson

TDA wrote: »

That expensive? that's not a million miles away from parts of London. Well if £3 required a deterrent of £25, then £20 would surely require a deterrent of £100? Certainly LA charges in parts of London can be very high (I've seen them at £135).

I think if I lived in Edinburgh and the charge was £40 where £20 was the day parking cost I'd chance my arm on the basis that you're probably only going to get max one ticket every three times and it's far cheaper!

If I operared a camera controlled car park I would be most happy for you to do it. Trying to charge you £100 is just too greedy.

TDA

OrdinaryPerson wrote: »

I also used the £3 figure. I was thinking of £3 for an hour's parking.

With camera controlled car parks people don't get away 9 out of 10 times anyway.

But we aren't talking about camera controlled car parks, we are specifically talking about P&D car parks?

It's been established (subject to the SC appeal of course) that they most certainly can charge £100 where it is a camera controlled maximum stay car park.

Shell2015

TDA wrote: »

That expensive? that's not a million miles away from parts of London. Well if £3 required a deterrent of £25, then £20 would surely require a deterrent of £100? Certainly LA charges in parts of London can be very high (I've seen them at £135).

I think if I lived in Edinburgh and the charge was £40 where £20 was the day parking cost I'd chance my arm on the basis that you're probably only going to get max one ticket every three times and it's far cheaper!

The £25 from £3 ticket was not based on multiplying it, it was based on the GPEOL of a ticket, DVLA cost, letter & postage costs.

So regardless of the parking charge the additional costs should remain around the same so what £22? If we just deduct the £3 from £25.