pcn

mondiniho

information removed

Fruitcake

B is out of date since the Beavis case in 2015.

The keeper would be better sending the initial appeal template from the sticky thread for NEWBIES, then killing this at PoPLA if/when it is rejected.

The_Deep

I think that not a GPEOL may well have legs here. Beavis overstayed by nearly an hour, and the charge was adjudged to be commercially justified. OP contravened some silly made up term, (which some MPs think is a breach of our civil liberties), and is obviously a penalty. Others may disagree, but I would be inclined to leave it in.

BTW, UTCCC 1999 is out of date.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.


ccc otT

Grimble

Read and quote this to POPLA when you get the code. http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Coupon-mad

Link doesn't work but the toothbrush case is very out of date. I never refer to it.

I am about to do the appeal on the leisure park website and the UKPC , does anybody believe the following will work?

You have no hope with that and must have found some very old treads to locate one about GPEOL! Please read the NEWBIES thread, no need to reinvent the wheel.

The_Deep

CM, if if GPEOL is a dead parrot, why did this case get thrown out?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5583492/ukpc-lose-residential-case-charge-not-a-genuine-pre-estimate-of-loss

Coupon-mad

It is an 'ex-parrot'. GPEOL as a defence term in its own right is no more; it has has ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker.

DJ Gibson dismissed the claim on the basis UKPC did not have authority to override the lease and issue charges.

The charge of £100 therefore had no commercial justification

ratechaser

This is a rotten honey trap of a site. Nothing that demarcates where the site boundary is - perfectly reasonable to assume that the theatre over the bridge is part of the park. Signage is poor as well, mostly high up on lampposts. Without a doubt they watch out for people parking near the bridge and pounce as soon as they use it - which of course means they have failed to mitigate their losses (as they are required to do).

So stick with the template in the newbies thread as previously advised, but what killed off my own identical ticket a couple of years back was a complaint along the lines above to the landowner - if it's not changed since then, this is Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) and IIRC they have a 'contact is' form on their website. Within a couple of days they had come back to me agreeing to cancel.

And while you're waiting for a response, google 'ibbotson parking' to see what happens to PPCs that try taking 'left site' cases to court

Coupon-mad

Except the Ibbotson case is pre-Beavis and out of date.

mondiniho

ratechaser wrote: »

This is a rotten honey trap of a site. Nothing that demarcates where the site boundary is - perfectly reasonable to assume that the theatre over the bridge is part of the park. Signage is poor as well, mostly high up on lampposts. Without a doubt they watch out for people parking near the bridge and pounce as soon as they use it - which of course means they have failed to mitigate their losses (as they are required to do).

So stick with the template in the newbies thread as previously advised, but what killed off my own identical ticket a couple of years back was a complaint along the lines above to the landowner - if it's not changed since then, this is Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) and IIRC they have a 'contact is' form on their website. Within a couple of days they had come back to me agreeing to cancel.

I'm not from the area as expressed previously, so cannot remember whether they have any get out case surrounding the site boundary. My recollection is that there are no signs to where the site start and ends.

Can your (more) local knowledge confirm or deny this?

I would have hoped the there would have been some legs in Unfair and punative charges were £100 for an alleged breach of contract of less than 10 minutes in A FREE CAR PARK.

Quentin

There's no hope!

See dead parrot quote in #9!!