Confusion on appeal to IPC and PCM

Guys_Dad

To expand ManxRed's reply - the usual charge from BPA PPCs is a disguised "penalty" for infringing their t&c.

As this was being overturned at POPLA on noit being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, a new group (the IPC) was set up and a number of PPCs defected to them as they were more PPC biased. Their big thing was that they advised PPCs to make a charge of £100 for parking or other transgressions but to allow a period of, say, 2 hours free.

The subtle difference is that motorists agreed to a contract to pay the £100 for parking outside the free period rather than being charged for transgression.

The downside of this is that if the £100 is a contractual charge for a service, as distinct from a charge for a breach, then VAT should be applicable. PPCs don't want to touch the latter with a bargepole, so IPC PPCs really do not want to come up to court and bring the whole thing down like a pack of cards.

The_Deep

However, a few IPC companies like to think that the charge is for an actual service that they are providing to the motorist. So, for the reasonable sum of, say, £100, they will allow you to park outside of a marked bay.

For that £100 you can also park blocking an entrance or exit, on an access road, in a disabled bay, or blocking emergency vehicles, usually for 24 hours, but sometimes for ever, now that is a bargain.

FrayGrant

Thank you everyone, so does everyone think I should appeal to the IAS?

Thanks

The_Deep

FrayGrant wrote: »

Thank you everyone, so does everyone think I should appeal to the IAS?

Thanks

It is not what anyone else thinks, it is what YOU think. The facts are all here, as are various opinions, !!!! or get off the pan.