Parking Eye (Newquay) POPLA - Advice & Help Please

Guys_Dad

johnf15 wrote: »

Well the jobsworth's on here are more concerned about me upsetting the forum rules that are set on stone, than helping Mr tommy 1080 with his problem...
Good luck fella but no help to be found here,

So all the thanks from the hundreds of people this forum has helped get off the PPC charges and the evidence of the POPLA DECISIONS thread do not represent any help?

Because we try to keep one thread to help the OP and ask others to open their own threads so that we can help target our advice, you have got the hump.

Just think about it for a minute and grow up.

Redx

johnf15 wrote: »

Well the jobsworth's on here are more concerned about me upsetting the forum rules that are set on stone, than helping Mr tommy 1080 with his problem...
Good luck fella but no help to be found here,

I doubt that with your attitude you have ever helped anyone to do anything !!

if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen , and stop hijacking other people`s posts, its disrespectful

Redx

johnf15 wrote: »

5 days and nobody post nothing, as soon as I have a dig your all on it like fly's on s***.
And redx...I've help plenty of people within 8 years of service and continue to do so.
Thanks again for the help.

YOU MAY THINK YOU ARE A SMART ALEC ON YOUR KEYBOARD, JUST REMEMBER THAT UNLIKE YOU, WE DONT HAVE A PARKING CHARGE TO SORT OUT, WHEREAS YOU STILL DO !

its all , "me - me - me" - with you

its just a shame that you are so disrespectful to this OP by continually posting !!!! on his thread whereas any replies should be to help him. not you ! how selfish of you

and with only 8 years of service, you are still at apprentice stage, speak when you are spoken to

Ivor_Pecheque

Sometimes good to take a step back, breathe, and remember who the enemy are.

Redx

but dont forget , good manners costs nothing, but we are not seeing them here on this hijack , so as forum help is given freely (or not) , then you would think that the newbies would show some manners and respect, a lot do, but some havent a clue

Northlakes

Some folk should just go and see a solicitor @£90 per hour and the advice can be far worse than here for free.
Some posters should remember that.

Tommy1080

Thanks for the photo's Ivor Pecheque, much appreciated. I'm just trying to get my POPLA appeal together and I will post on here ASAP.

It was the Cafe place (the bottom photo)... You mentioned entry exit routes to the car park? Was there a problem with them?

Thanks

salmosalaris

In which case , unless I'm mistaken , I believe that to be Tower Rd where PE claim to be the leaseholder .
In this case you need to differentiate the Beavis case . PE presumably retain the car parking tariff , a straightforward financial contract between them and the driver . There can be no commercial justification for charging a penalty for any underpayment , they would have been entirely happy for you to park for the requisite fee . No external contractor is being used to enforce the t@c so the only possible loss to PE is any unpaid tariff plus possibly ( although this is debatable ) the DVLA look up fee , an envelope , a sheet of paper and a stamp . Their charge must be a gpeol which it clearly is not , the ruling in Beavis is irrelevant in this case .

Tommy1080

salmosalaris wrote: »

In which case , unless I'm mistaken , I believe that to be Tower Rd where PE claim to be the leaseholder .
In this case you need to differentiate the Beavis case . PE presumably retain the car parking tariff , a straightforward financial contract between them and the driver . There can be no commercial justification for charging a penalty for any underpayment , they would have been entirely happy for you to park for the requisite fee . No external contractor is being used to enforce the t@c so the only possible loss to PE is any unpaid tariff plus possibly ( although this is debatable ) the DVLA look up fee , an envelope , a sheet of paper and a stamp . Their charge must be a gpeol which it clearly is not , the ruling in Beavis is irrelevant in this case .

Thanks salmosalaris! I wasnt sure whether to include the GPEOL angle but sounds like I should! Cheers!

salmosalaris

Read paragraphs 44 onwards of the CoA judgment and include pertinent parts on the basis that the CoA would have found differently in your case .
1. It is a financial contract and subject to the doctrine of penalties and their charge must represent a gpeol which it far exceeds
2. as the only motive of the charge is to deter underpayment ( or in your case apparent underpayment as you claim you paid ) it is an unenforceable penalty .
3. PE sell the parking for their own benefit
4. They would have been happy to sell the entire stay for the parking tariff , in comparison their PCN is extravagant and unconscionable to the loss of that tariff .
5. There is no loss to any retailers etc serviced by the car park which is simply a commercial operation by PE no different to any everyday commercial enterprise .
6. There was no loss as the driver paid therefore there is obviously a fault somewhere in oroceedings