A Suggestion

salmosalaris

Can I put this out for opinions

When a ticket is received simply because of underpayment the following is sent

Dear PPC
Re pcn xxxx

I am registered keeper of vehicle xxxxx. I am in receipt of your demand for £x because you believe it is owed by the driver who inadvertantly failed to pay a small parking tariff .
This charge is clearly a penalty .
I offer to reimburse you with the original unpaid parking tariff but will not be paying the extravagant and unconscionable amount demanded.You have no legitimate interest in enforcing this disproportionate charge because ,if the driver had paid the amount I am now offering to reimburse you with ,the vehicle would have been fully entitled to park as it did .
There is no justification that your charge needs to be a sum worth pursuing in court or that you will incur the costs of referring the matter to POPLA as you have the ability to recover the only loss without incurring these expenses .
If you do not accept this challenge , accept payment and cancel the ticket I expect you, with your refusal, to issue a POPLA verification code .
I would remind you of the requirement for parties to a dispute to at all times mitigate their losses
Yours
Reginald Keeper

The_Deep

If you bilked I think that the PPC are entitled to a small sum to cover their expenses, but to me it sounds a bit like CM's futile "drop hands" offer. PPCs are not renowned for their common sense.

salmosalaris

I don't think for a second they'll cancel .
The idea is to lay a paper trail that any real debt was offered and that consequently their inflated charge (which is justified in the SC judgment by the fact it has to be worth sueing for) is entirely without foundation .
This can then be followed up at POPLA claiming they have no legitimate interest in enforcing what is a clearly punitive disproportionate charge and pin them down to come up with a legitimate interest that is justified to prove otherwise.
If subsequently a POPLA appeal is lost a DJ can be shown that from the start payment was offered for the actual debt .
By all means if you want to add the cost of a stamp , envelope and DVLA fee you could .

I just think approaches should change , whether it would prove succesful is unknown. POPLA are obviously creaking though and setting them another difficult question they'd probably rather not answer can't be a bad thing . And relying simply on gpeol just because it is a pay to park site could well fail .

It may all prove irrelevant in the near future once government have had a say but for now .....

Coupon-mad

I think it's a very good idea, let's try it. When I get a chance I will link this thread in the NEWBIES thread.

I just think approaches should change , whether it would prove successful is unknown. POPLA are obviously creaking though and setting them another difficult question they'd probably rather not answer can't be a bad thing .

Agreed. It doesn't hurt at all.

Also, a consumer making an offer is deliberate (that's why I had the Drop-Hands Offer in the old version of an appeal - it was the only reason, just to be seen to 'make an offer') because that puts cases as potentially covered by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/contents/made

salmosalaris

After all how many signs say when the parking tariff must be paid by?

Coupon-mad

Well that's true...maybe we need to build that in. No breach of contract at all!

pappa_golf

salmosalaris wrote: »

After all how many signs say when the parking tariff must be paid by?

good question


awaiting invoice thru post?

The_Deep

Now that I like.

arthurx1234

salmosalaris wrote: »

Can I put this out for opinions

When a ticket is received simply because of underpayment the following is sent

Dear PPC
Re pcn xxxx

I am registered keeper of vehicle xxxxx. I am in receipt of your demand for £x because you believe it is owed by the driver who inadvertantly failed to pay a small parking tariff .
This charge is clearly a penalty .
I offer to reimburse you with the original unpaid parking tariff but will not be paying the extravagant and unconscionable amount demanded.You have no legitimate interest in enforcing this disproportionate charge because ,if the driver had paid the amount I am now offering to reimburse you with ,the vehicle would have been fully entitled to park as it did .
There is no justification that your charge needs to be a sum worth pursuing in court or that you will incur the costs of referring the matter to POPLA as you have the ability to recover the only loss without incurring these expenses .
If you do not accept this challenge , accept payment and cancel the ticket I expect you, with your refusal, to issue a POPLA verification code .
I would remind you of the requirement for parties to a dispute to at all times mitigate their losses
Yours
Reginald Keeper

Surely this is no different than stealing something, then when your caught offering to pay and expecting the charges to be dropped!!!
Arthur

Umkomaas

I've always pondered the term 'parking charge' used in PoFA. I've read it as the amount paid at the P&D machine/parking attendant or the amount unpaid (or underpaid in the event of an overstay). Clearly PPCs read it as their £100!

This is a nice idea, for the motorist to be seen to be reasonable in offering the unpaid/underpaid amount (as per PoFA), to flush out the true motives of the PPC and to throw in a new argument for POPLA to handle.

Let's see how it's dealt with.

salmosalaris

arthurx1234 wrote: »

Surely this is no different than stealing something, then when your caught offering to pay and expecting the charges to be dropped!!!
Arthur

If it was deliberate avoidance possibly morally and I don't see anyone suggesting or condoning that .But what about inadvertant errors eg paying for 2 hours for £2-00 instead of £3-00 for 3 hours , arriving back 10 minutes late, receiving a ticket for £100 but then offering the extra £1-00 which they would have been entirely happy to accept at the time of purchase ? That is hardly theft ( well the £100 might be )

Plus it is not up to a private company to operate a quasi criminal justice system in the form of £100 fines . If they feel theft has been perpetrated there are adequate authorities to report it to .

And any comparison with statutory penalties should be quashed , the revenue from those goes into the communal pot and not the back pocket of a profiteer .