NTK issued outside 14 days

Witchiepoo

Wow guys, don't jump on me, I'm new to this situation & reading up all I can. Everything I've read states that the PCC can only claim for genuine losses and if they try to claim for more than that then it's classed as an unenforceable penalty. I don't know which law covers this if any, I've spoken to a couple of people & was told by them that the law states they can't demand more than the loss - sorry if I have it wrong.

Redx

as they are members of the IPC they follow the IPC CoP and the IPC dont use genuine loss , they use contract law which states the agreed sum to pay if the rules are not followed

you are the one who said there was a law, so we are asking you to name that law, in full, especially because we dont know of any such law

I would say that they are not claiming for losses, ie:- £1 or whatever, they are claiming the contractual sum for not paying the car park fee, so contract law

Beavis lost his case on a free car park and the charge was about £85 , so those "losses" claimed were much greater then this contractual £50 "penalty" on this car park , plus its more in line with council charges so harder for you to defend , and has a discount on offer for early payment, so much the same as a council charge too

you have the right to defend yourself in court if you feel differently about these matters, but then you have to convince a judge ( as you see daily on Rinder)

Guys_Dad

Witchiepoo wrote: »

Wow guys, don't jump on me, I'm new to this situation & reading up all I can. Everything I've read states that the PCC can only claim for genuine losses and if they try to claim for more than that then it's classed as an unenforceable penalty. I don't know which law covers this if any, I've spoken to a couple of people & was told by them that the law states they can't demand more than the loss - sorry if I have it wrong.

You will read lots about the Beavis case. That blew the Estimate of loss argument out of the water in his case and that would apply to lots of others.

There are 2 different ways in general that PPCs base their charges. The first is effectively penalties for breach of contract. The other is wording their offer of parking in such a way that you enter a contract with them for £X parking fee, but free for y minutes/hours.

Most friends/colleagues are misinformed on parking matters, although well intentioned. Our "mission" here is to help and educate. If we seem abrupt sometimes, just look at the current threads on the go and you might see why we are sometimes a bit short. But you won't get better free advice than here and a couple of other forums.

Edit:- Redx has put it very well indeed and our posts clashed!

Coupon-mad

Witchiepoo wrote: »

Wow guys, don't jump on me, I'm new to this situation & reading up all I can. Everything I've read states that the PCC can only claim for genuine losses and if they try to claim for more than that then it's classed as an unenforceable penalty. I don't know which law covers this if any, I've spoken to a couple of people & was told by them that the law states they can't demand more than the loss - sorry if I have it wrong.

Contract law in a simple financial contract situation works like that, yes. The penalty rule can render a charge unenforceable if it is disproportionate and punitive...

BUT:

In ParkingEye v Beavis in November 2015 all except one of the Judges - astonishingly - decided that the above 'penalty rule' was disengaged. They decided in their infinite wisdom that the charge IN THAT CASE was OK because the parking firm could demonstrate they had a 'legitimate interest' in ensuring performance of the primary obligation (to leave after the 2 hours' free parking offered) over and above the usual 'damages only' ceiling. PE, backed by Capita, convinced the Judges...in that case. But being a Supreme Court decision it's at the highest level and other parking firms will use it.

Now, your case differs. But it is still a 'parking charge case' which would be backed by Gladstones if ParkWithEase try a small claim.

Will a county court Judge agree with Gladstones or you, will your defence be heard or just struck out due to Beavis - who knows? Do you want to fight this? You will fight an uphill battle. It might be winnable, it might not. If you lose in court you would be looking at paying up to £200 but I stress most cases do not go to court so it's not certain it would even come to that.

So, it remains your call and the only reason I'm telling you to think hard is because £25 isn't massively high and in fact mirrors a Council PCN amount and is the sort of sum the Government is likely to consider OK when they come to regulate this 'scamdustry'.

If you wish to fight on in principle, all power to you as long as that's an informed decision.

Guys_Dad

If c-m hints at settling, given her track record of fighting PPCs vehemently, I would consider thinking about it.

Coupon-mad

It's just worth a thought based on the low-ish amount and the PPC being an occasional dabbler in small claims, and this coming fairly soon after Beavis which we already know some Judges will just give the nod to. It's defendable of course but now's the time to decide.

I hate writing that! But just being realistic and wanting the OP to weigh it up now while £25 is 'all' it is.

Witchiepoo

Thanks to everyone that's helped & contributed to this thread - I really appreciate your help. After reading everything I can & taking on board all the info/suggestions here I have decided that although I would love to fight this on principle that the best route of action would be to pay the £25. I won't roll over easily though, I have emailed the site owners & voiced my opinions on their choice of parking company/system very strongly & told them that I won't be returning & will be sharing my experience with friends & family & recommending that they don't visit either. I have found many, many other people complaining about parking issues at the same site and other similar sites run by 'Park With Ease,' a lot of them HAVE paid the parking fees but still receive the demand for the £50/£25 fee and as the letters are (I assume deliberately) delayed in being sent out, have no evidence of payment being made anymore. Lots of people paying the amounts asked for by the machines then being sent letters stating that they have underpaid & demanding the £50/£25 too and all sorts of other problems. Either way I have left public reviews on both Trip Advisor & the site's own Facebook page warning people of the heavy & unfair penalties & warning them off visiting - as many others have too. Hopefully the site may just take note if enough of us do this. Thanks again everyone, every bit of input helped & is appreciated. Sad we couldn't kick butt in this case but hopefully this thread may help other people too.

Witchiepoo

Oh, And I found this on another site from a thread where someone had investigated heavily into the background of Park with Ease :
I also find it very fishy that the lawyer that represents Park with Ease and the so-called independent regulator are run by exactly the same people, from the same address. Surely that shouldn't be the case?

Umkomaas

When you send your cheque make sure you place any cross reference details like PCN number, vehicle VRM, date of incident etc on the back of it and include in your covering letter 'In Full and Final Settlement'.

Redx

and make sure yourself , family and any other friends who are voters sign the Beavis petition on the government website and get it over the 10k it needs for a response , never mind the 100k it needs for a possible parliamentary debate

we need to keep the pressure on