Court action after PPC losing contract

Curlyben

Here's one to ponder.
Does the PPC have the right to enforce PCN  by court action if they have lost the contract after the PCN was issued ?
Would there have to be a specific clause in the original land owner contract to cover this or do they simply continue the process to the bitter end as a debt claim ?

The_Slithy_Tove

Curlyben said:

Does the PPC have the right to enforce PCN  by court action if they have lost the contract after the PCN was issued ?

Yes.
It's what contracts were in place and agreed to on the day of the incident that matters. Why should what happens subsequently make any difference?
When the car was parked (or not), that is when the driver may or may not have agreed to a contract, and that is when the alleged debt arose. That alleged debt is between the driver and the PPC. It doesn't go away just because the PPC and the landowner relationship changes.

Half_way

Yes, as above its what the state of play was on the day of the parking event, as at the time the parking company would have had permission to pursue people and issue parking charge notices upto the day the contract between them and the landowner ceased, any stuff pending from before the PPC/landowner relationship ended could still be pursed based on the day of the event.

 However, as far as i know they can only pursue people through the courts with the permission of the landowner or the principal ( whoever contracted the PPC) if the landowner / p[rincipal withdraws permission, then that could/should kill any court case dead in the water

Umkomaas

A bit like those who come with a court case against them but argue that as the car has been sold/scrapped, the PPC has no further right to pursue.  ⛅️ 🐦 

Redx

Or they received a ticket for speeding at 40 mph on a 30 mph road a year ago , yet they ask if anything can be done now because the limit just changed to 40 Mph last week so the original ticket was obviously unfair !!

A TARDIS is a good machine , if it worked !! 😁😋

Coupon-mad

Yes. In Sussex, OPS are still suing people after they were booted out of Peacehaven Co-op. 

There is no PPC there now, which is as it should be.  Why do retailers actually think they need a scammer infesting their site?

Umkomaas

Very much like CEL with their revenge claims when they were shown the door, also by the Co-op. 

twhitehousescat

Umkomaas said:

Very much like CEL with their revenge claims when they were shown the door, also by the Co-op. 

and the 50 cases that were on court hold ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, pending outcome of 2 test cases , that disappeared , nothing to see here move along,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, A93YM708, and A79YP365

Curlyben

Why did he post that, I can hear people asking.
Well, after reading about ensuring that the PPC have a valid contract with the landowner to ensure that they can actually take enforcement action. I got to thinking that should the PPC contract be terminated, does that also affect the terms of said contract.

Yeah I'm rubbish with contract law, just thinking out loud. (Quiet Sunday)

twhitehousescat

who knows , but a letter from the land owner/shop stating they terminated the PPC due to over zelousness and had thhey know in time they would have contacted PPC to get it cancelled would be looked on favourabully by a judge as would a comment "we cant get it cancelled as PPC are no longer in contract with us ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the company would put attilla the hun , to shame