UKPC - Their evidence - POPLA

UKFIRST

Hi All,

Just got an email from UKPC with their evidence for POPLA. This is following my appeal to POPLA using the template for no GPEOL and no contractual authority.

This seems insufficient, but they have still tried to use it. Also, they mentioned the 2015 Beavis case which I think is still ongoing to the Supreme court?

What do you guys think?

Can't post links, so evidence is visible at:

Tinypic dot com /r/5xr3q1/8
Tinypic dot com /r/8xq0z9/8

Thanks,
Noel

The_Deep

Beavis is only applicable in very limited circumstances, these are,

free time limited car park without facility to purchase extra time.

PPC pays landowner to farm car park

Commercial justification applies, this depends on several factors, such as location of car park, are retailers served by this car park content with the time restriction, did event prevent others from parking,

We would need full details of event, also, I suggest you read the COA findings.

Redx

just find a recent rebuttals post on here and tailor it to suit and refute the evidence pack

Umkomaas

A couple of good examples of how to rebut PPC evidence pack. Please note these are pre-Beavis, so you need to carefully look at anything relating to GPEOL in them. But I'm sure they will give you plenty of ideas on how to handle your case.

The first is extremely comprehensive.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67385911#Comment_67385911

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67402366&postcount=26

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Beavis is only applicable in very limited circumstances.,
.

You know that.

The regulars on here know that.

Parking Eye, I suspect, knows that.

It's just a pity that some of the judges are not so well informed.

neil.net

An early paragraph refers to the "nature and enforceability of parking charges" - this suggests a universal clarification, whereas the clarification applies to the circumstances of the Beavis case. The next paragraph states that the interpretation must be adhered to but UKPC don't seem to realise that this interpretation may only be relevant in similar circumstances.


On the whole they have entered into an explanation of the Beavis case without considering if it is of sufficiently related. They have mentioned issues of "public policy" and other supporting factors in the large paragraph before the end but have not explained/justified how these issues make the charge enforceable. They have stated that "without doubt" the charge is "wholly valid and fully enforceable" but this is only UKPC's assertion which is not backed up by any rationalisation of how/why the charge is valid and enforceable in these particular circumstances.

Guys_Dad

Do make the most of the "No Contract" appeal point as this seems to be a current winner.

You need to demand that they produce a contract with the actual landowner - not anyone who may be leasing or renting the site. If their contract is NOT with the landowner, then demand that the right to engage a PPC is conferred on their client by producing evidence to substantiate that.

UKFIRST

Thank you all for the comments and links - will put something together asap and then update the relevant threads with the result (assuming my counter statement isn't too difficult (

Thanks!!

enfield_freddy

perhaps throe paragraph 50 of the COA statement back at them


"That paragraph is as follows:

It is an oddity of the facts that the respondent appears not to make any money out of thecontract unless drivers do overstay, so enabling Mr Hossain to argue that, so far from suffering loss by a driver overstaying, the respondent only stands to gain by that breach of contract (though of course if the appellant is right and the parking charge is unenforceable, the operator does not stand to gain anything under any circumstances). The law would allow damages for trespass against the overstayer without regard to what the operator would have done but for the trespass: see for example Swordheath Properties v Tabet [1979] 1 WLR 285. Thus, the actual effect of the trespass on the car park operator's position is not relevant in any event. However, unless the defendant's occupation has been of particular value to him, the compensation would be limited to the market value of the occupation during the period of trespass. That would provide no disincentive against overstaying."

TDA

The_Deep wrote: »

Beavis is only applicable in very limited circumstances, these are,

free time limited car park without facility to purchase extra time.

PPC pays landowner to farm car park

Commercial justification applies, this depends on several factors, such as location of car park, are retailers served by this car park content with the time restriction, did event prevent others from parking,

We would need full details of event, also, I suggest you read the COA findings.

For someone who was claiming to have not even read the case a couple of weeks back you sure are doing a fine job of misrepresenting the judgment...

1) The policy factors could very well extend beyond simple 'overstays'. I'm particularly think about parking in disabled bays.

2) The judges specifically stated that the result would have been the same regardless of the contractual arrangement between PE and the landowner.

3) The judgment wasn't framed in the language of commercial justification. The judges, rather astutely I would say in hindsight, managed to avoid that potentially sticky approach. The 'parking charge' was assessed under the normal criteria for a penalty, with the CoA feeling that the true test was one of 'extravagance or unconscionability' (but not necessarily whether it was a deterrent).

Freddy, I'm not sure how that paragraph has any relevance? It's an obiter comment where the judge is stating that as trespass would be limited to the market value of the occupation it would not serve as a disincentive against overstaying? That comment simply supports the case for the charge being £85...