PE lose court case at St Albans (again)

salmosalaris

Herzlos wrote: »

Then they use POFA to pursue the keeper/driver for the unpaid parking charges, plus reasonable costs, as they are supposed to do. I doubt anyone would defend an invoice of the actual shortage in tariff + admin costs. Unfortunately for the PPC's, that is probably a total of under about £20 each time, and considerately less profit than a £100 breach fee.

Government interference will be necessary to achieve that but don't hold your breath . Limiting ticket prices to their statutory counterparts ( £25 if paid early) would pretty much achieve what you suggest.

Herzlos

Isn't that exactly what POFA was intended to do? Actual parking charge that was underpaid + costs?

salmosalaris

Herzlos wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what POFA was intended to do? Actual parking charge that was underpaid + costs?

The Act was open to various interpretations , it was deliberately vague probably

Castle

Herzlos wrote: »

Then they use POFA to pursue the keeper/driver for the unpaid parking charges, plus reasonable costs, as they are supposed to do. I doubt anyone would defend an invoice of the actual shortage in tariff + admin costs. Unfortunately for the PPC's, that is probably a total of under about £20 each time, and considerately less profit than a £100 breach fee.

In 99% of cases the tariff is owed to the landowner not the PPC. Furthermore, the BPA's code of practice excludes "normal parking tariffs fees".

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

@TDA
Good to have you back
Your contributions are always respected , serious dialogue is rare here

I am late paying my paper bill and am subject to a £100 surcharge on the premise that although this obviously engages the penalty rule it is disengaged because of a legitimate interest , ie the efficient management of the newsagents . Comments ?

Apologies for not responding to this sooner, but things have been very busy of late.

An interesting question and, theoretically, there is perhaps little difference between such a scenario and a failure to buy a Pay & Display ticket at a paid car park.

In practice, however, I can't help but feel the courts would approach things differently. The courts, rightly or wrongly, seem to treat parking differently to other industries.

One possible reason for this might be that for the vast majority of consumer transactions payment is either made at the point of sale, or if not (such as in your paper bill example) the vendor tends to have your payment details on file (typically, with the bill being subject to direct debit). This is distinguishable from parking where it is incredibly easy to use the service and subsequently leave without paying.

A linked issue is that if you don't pay your paper bill on time the newsagent will likely just refuse to deliver your next paper until you do. It's difficult to do the same in parking, short of suing for trespass and getting an injunction which is both costly and somewhat impractical!

Finally, I imagine the courts probably see people failing to pay for P&D tickets as comparatively commonplace. If no one ever paid their paper bill perhaps we would start to see such penalties creeping in, but it doesn't appear to be a significant problem.

I am sure people will leap to tell me that there is no widespread issue with non-payment of P&D tickets, but personally I might be inclined to disagree. Whilst I doubt that there is anywhere close to a majority of car-park users failing to purchase P&D tickets, I would hazard a guess that it is far more commonplace than people failing to pay their paper bill, or any other bill for that matter.

Just my two cents. Who knows how a court might approach such a charge. I am yet to see the introduction of similar penalty clauses in other consumer contracts as of yet.

System

Finally, I imagine the courts probably see people failing to pay for P&D tickets as comparatively commonplace. If no one ever paid their paper bill perhaps we would start to see such penalties creeping in, but it doesn't appear to be a significant problem.

I'm with TDA on this one. Some might see not paying a P&D ticket as theft or overstaying your welcome as the "theft" of time. But he/she puts their finger on it by looking at the issue as a mischief. If other public wrongs were identified, the law could be extended there.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mischief

salmosalaris

I entirely agree how the court would ( and do ) interpret it .
The interesting comment though from the SC judgment was that in that particular circumstance it was difficult to see how the objective of deterring ovetstayers could be achieved without the (non) penalty charge .

That is simply not the case in a P&D car park where barrier systems are commonplace , pay on exit schemes are possible so that minor inadvertant underpayments or incorrect VRN input etc are impossible .
It is intellectually dishonest to refute the suggestion that schemes in ANPR set ups that allow incorrect VRN's or don't make clear to a motorist when the contract starts and ends are both unfair and a deliberate tactic as such issues are easily avoided.

Interestingly most parking signs don't stipulate when the parking tariff must be paid by . If that is the case and payment is offered once notified by the PPC is there actually a breach of contract anyway ?

We are probably unlikely to see many such penalty clauses in other consumer contracts IMO because most businesses wish to retain their clientele .