Thoughts on charge terms

Peeves

We might be missing each other's point.

I think we can agree they're saying parking charge + losses.

The losses part I think we agree on too. No incurred loss, no claim for that part.

The fundamental problem is they define parking charge = parking charge(s) + losses. Which has to be a nonsense because you can't define a thing by using its name.

Beavis didn't suffer this ambiguity because it was a free car park. The charge was clearly written as a charge for overstaying.

What then is a parking charge? PoFA doesn't define it as a singular thing. Only as an umbrella term - allowing contracts to define their own terminology. So the contract must define it but it does not. Falling then to the common definition of the parking fee since that is to the benefit of the consumer.

So we're left with fee + losses. The debt recovery fee, if claimed can easily be dismissed since it is not an incurred loss. Resulting in ~£5 plus nominal admin fee because someone has spent five minutes putting letters in the outbox that they wouldn't have otherwise.

Coupon-mad

Aaah, I get you now.

Unusual wording in your case. The problem is the dumb way they've written it to be ONLY able to pursue fee + fake DRA costs:

The interesting term is this:

"If you do not comply with these requirements [usual pay the amount, park within the lines, etc] we may issue you with a Parking Charge Notice requiring you to pay any unpaid parking charge(s), together with an additional amount representing an estimate of the additional expenses we will incur as a result of your non-compliance (including without limitation debt recovery costs) (the "Parking Charge"). Specific details about the parking charge payable are available in each Car Park."

However, I'd be surprised if  a Judge would be convinced with this argument, if the signs in the actual car park state that the 'parking charge for breach' of any term is £100.

Peeves

Coupon-mad said:

However, I'd be surprised if  a Judge would be convinced with this argument, if the signs in the actual car park state that the 'parking charge for breach' of any term is £100.

There is one other sign that mentions it:

"Tariff up to 24hrs £4.95

Failure to pay for your parking may result in the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100 (reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days). If payment is further delayed, additional costs will be incurred.

Private land managed by National Car Parks Ltd. Terms & Conditions apply.

Acceptance of these Terms & Conditions is a condition of entry to this car park."

If I do get the chance to argue it I'll be sure to report back. This car park is a train wreck though so it would probably be won on some other simpler point.

Coupon-mad

A non-POFA NTK usually trips up NCP.

Is it a station car park and/or a non-POFA PCN?

Johnersh

Well you can't have your cake and eat it.

There is a clear risk to them that by trying to wrap up bolt on costs in that way they have defined the charge as £100, which is also what PoFA permits. It is the obvious argument to make over ambiguity even if the case is lost to try and cap the fee (especially if there is no proof DRP or others have incurred any cost). 

That said PCN ('penalty charge notice') and "the penalty charge" are linguistically distinct. They may seek to argue one is the principal charge and the other refers to the additional bolt-on element plus the principal sum. 

This is pure interpretation, so there is no definitive answer as to what a court may choose to do with it. The other option is, of course, that the court excises offending elements with the ol' blue pencil doctrine.