So...

StaffsSW

I'm happy to stand corrected, but didn't this whole issue only look at the GPEOL aspect of the charge?

What about NtK compliance?
Or signage?
Or Landowner Authority?
Or ANPR accuracy?

So GPEOL is dead and buried, move along, but challenge them on everything else. Keep the PPC on their toes and let them enjoy this pyrrhic victory for only a moment.

I've got somewhere in the region of 200 tickets cancelled at POPLA or at source, and I've not used GPEOL in any of the challenges since last year. Granted, I'm in a relatively unique position to deal with these, but the fight is a long way from over without the need for petitions.

Umkomaas

Pontification from the BPA.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/british-parking-association-calls-for-summit-following-supreme-court-decision

Going forward on this, there are plenty of other points of appeal to get stuck into. Remember, we haven't had a GPEOL appeal decision for some months, but we've had plenty of appeals upheld.

Removal of any reference to GPEOL, penalties, charges, commercial justification in a POPLA appeal won't provide the PPC with the opportunity to counter it with PE -v- Beavis.

Johno100

So how do this ruling impact on those many circumstances where no contract is offered by the PPC to the motorist?

I'm thinking of "permit holders only", "no entry" and "no stopping" and those other scenarios where an act is specifically prohibited by signage.

Umkomaas

As I read it, the SC judgment relies heavily on the 'contract'. Without a contract in place ...........? Fill in the blanks.

Guys_Dad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Pontification from the BPA.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/british-parking-association-calls-for-summit-following-supreme-court-decision

Going forward on this, there are plenty of other points of appeal to get stuck into. Remember, we haven't had a GPEOL appeal decision for some months, but we've had plenty of appeals upheld.

Removal of any reference to GPEOL, penalties, charges, commercial justification in a POPLA appeal won't provide the PPC with the opportunity to counter it with PE -v- Beavis.

Actually, Beavis does give some crumbs of comfort. The right to fleece the motorist to the tune of £85/£100 depends upon the "contract terms" being properly displayed.

I am sure that some of the more legally trained contributors can go through the published decision to pick out one or more relevant paragraphs that make proper signage fundamental to a contract/agreement being made between the PPC/motorist or the motorist accepting the t&c. And the SC did make reference to the PPCs following the BPA AoS.

So when the PPC quotes the Beavis opinion that the charge is neither excessive nor unconscionable , the "Yes but" conditions can be applied as a counter. Assuming, of course, that the signage is not perfect.

jenster

LBC radio at 9pm (4th Nov ) have a lawyer on discussing this case

bob56

This Government are unlikely to intervene.

I expect they will be all in favour of private enterprise maximising profits.

If you are at an income level where £90 is a significant amount then you will be someone of no importance to this government.

Or so it would seem? I hope I am wrong.

( Repeal the Law change, bring back clamping?)

bob56

Rant over but heart felt.

Signage seems to be one of the few defences but is such a grey area. Sign badly placed? Could not read the sign in the dark? Seems that it is your fault for not spending enough time and effort finding and reading it. Contract agreed on your part by entering the car park. It says so on the signs.... that were badly placed, in the dark...

HO87

bob56 wrote: »

This Government are unlikely to intervene.

I expect they will be all in favour of private enterprise maximising profits.

If you are at an income level where £90 is a significant amount then you will be someone of no importance to this government.

Or so it would seem? I hope I am wrong.

( Repeal the Law change, bring back clamping?)

I agree but only by way of emphasising the word "unlikely" although I would not discount it entirely especially if we see something of a feeding-frenzy in the next few months. I'd be surprised if there isn't one after all this involves money and neither the BPA nor the IPC have sufficient control of their members to stop it and almost certainly lack the will to do so.

If they do intervene I have a feeling that it might just be to set a limit on charges. I'm less convinced that they would completely overturn the effect of the judgment - that would be a very substantial job - but they may set limits in respect of parking situations.

My concern is the potential this case has for consumer protection as a whole which seems to have been subordinated to the clamouring of corporate greed.

bazster

bob56 wrote: »

This Government are unlikely to intervene.

The government has already indicated that it has every intention of intervening.

Responsibility for this area moved from the Department for Transport to the Department for Communities and Local Government a while ago. The DCLG (which has already imposed various restrictions on council ticketing including a near-ban on cameras and a 10-minute grace period) immediately began a consultation ("Parking reform: tackling unfair practices"), which has now finished and we await an announcement of the recommended course of action, which may include new legislation.