Parking Eye - Defence

KeithP

Difficult to get a good picture of the entrance sign, in my opinion this entrance sign, like all ParkingEye car park signs, has a prominent £100 charge...

[a link to GSV - click on it]

Are you local? Can you get a better picture?
No great rush for that though.

And of course a sign that says NO PARKING is hardly an invitation to park. But that may just mean no parking on the entrance ramp.

Coupon-mad

easytry16 said:

PCN was for £120 and £60 if paid within some days. 

It can't have been.  It was £100 reduced to £60 which is the most PEye ever do.

Do you have the PCN?  Or a photo of the sign?

What about the LBCCC?  How much was that demanding last month or whenever?

They never ever exceed £100. 


Your defence must state this:

The Particulars of Claim ('POC') are embarrassing, in that the Claimant fails to specify the amount of the parking charge, or damages, or whatever this imaginary '£120' - that appears out of the blue in the box on the right on the claim form - is supposed to represent.  Specifying in the POC the amount claimed under alleged contract or damages is fundamental.  The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

As a matter of fact, within the pseudo-regulatory framework that applies at the present time (before the Government imminently caps the sum at a lower bar to mirror more closely the Local Authority parking 'penalty' regime, later this year) parking charges cannot exceed £100.  This is the maximum set by the BPA Code of Practice at paragraph xx

Which says:

(quote it, go read it).  

Given that £120 is in clear breach of the maximum set in the BPA Code of Practice - with no evidence that this Claimant had special BPA dispensation to put £120 in their signs at this unremarkable location - the Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis (which us far in excess of whatever was stated on the signs) is reason enough to disallow the claim.

The signs cannot and did not set a contractual charge of £120, yet the claim box on the right of the N1 claim form has invented a sum of £120. Plucked it out if thin air.  What can the extra £20 be for, because it is not stated to be damages or interest; the claim has been exaggerated and (unlike claims from other greedy Parking Operators and roboclaim firms) this is appalling conduct, not previously seen from ParkingEye in the past decade.

It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield StoresLtd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that purported "admin costs" inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

Further and in the alternative, the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (the pay and display fee was paid).  The Defendant avers that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the Defendant, who did pay as soon as the Claimant's own system allowed.

The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (notwithstanding ParkingEye v Beavis) since the inflated sum in this instance is incorrectly calculated and it is punitive in nature: a punishment for the slow operation of the Claimant's own app.  Having paid the advertised fee for the parking space, it is not reasonable to expect honest, paying motorists to realise that the small delay (completely outside of the consumer's control) could result in a parking charge.

The Court's attention is drawn to the statutory duty imposed on all courts when construing consumer contracts (ref s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015) and the fact that this Act has been breached (terms and notices that are likely to be unfair).  Even if the Defendant had driven back out after say, 12-15 minutes, due to the difficulties in getting the app to work, a parking charge would have already been incurred.  This position is absurd, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and there is a clear imbalance of contractual position.

easytry16

Coupon-mad said:

easytry16 said:

PCN was for £120 and £60 if paid within some days. 

It can't have been.  It was £100 reduced to £60 which is the most PEye ever do.

Do you have the PCN?  Or a photo of the sign?

What about the LBCCC?  How much was that demanding last month or whenever?

They never ever exceed £100. 


Your defence must state this:

The Particulars of Claim ('POC') are embarrassing, in that the Claimant fails to specify the amount of the parking charge, or damages, or whatever this imaginary '£120' - that appears out of the blue in the box on the right on the claim form - is supposed to represent.  Specifying in the POC the amount claimed under alleged contract or damages is fundamental.  The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

As a matter of fact, within the pseudo-regulatory framework that applies at the present time (before the Government imminently caps the sum at a lower bar to mirror more closely the Local Authority parking 'penalty' regime, later this year) parking charges cannot exceed £100.  This is the maximum set by the BPA Code of Practice at paragraph xx

Which says:

(quote it, go read it).  

Given that £120 is in clear breach of the maximum set in the BPA Code of Practice - with no evidence that this Claimant had special BPA dispensation to put £120 in their signs at this unremarkable location - the Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis (which us far in excess of whatever was stated on the signs) is reason enough to disallow the claim.

The signs cannot and did not set a contractual charge of £120, yet the claim box on the right of the N1 claim form has invented a sum of £120. Plucked it out if thin air.  What can the extra £20 be for, because it is not stated to be damages or interest; the claim has been exaggerated and (unlike claims from other greedy Parking Operators and roboclaim firms) this is appalling conduct, not previously seen from ParkingEye in the past decade.

It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield StoresLtd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that purported "admin costs" inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

Further and in the alternative, the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (the pay and display fee was paid).  The Defendant avers that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the Defendant, who did pay as soon as the Claimant's own system allowed.

The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (notwithstanding ParkingEye v Beavis) since the inflated sum in this instance is incorrectly calculated and it is punitive in nature: a punishment for the slow operation of the Claimant's own app.  Having paid the advertised fee for the parking space, it is not reasonable to expect honest, paying motorists to realise that the small delay (completely outside of the consumer's control) could result in a parking charge.

The Court's attention is drawn to the statutory duty imposed on all courts when construing consumer contracts (ref s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015) and the fact that this Act has been breached (terms and notices that are likely to be unfair).  Even if the Defendant had driven back out after say, 12-15 minutes, due to the difficulties in getting the app to work, a parking charge would have already been incurred.  This position is absurd, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and there is a clear imbalance of contractual position.

@Coupon-mad LBCCC show £100 and additional £20 added as cost of recovering a debt

easytry16

Does this change anything on the statements you've provided above? 

easytry16

KeithP said:

Difficult to get a good picture of the entrance sign, in my opinion this entrance sign, like all ParkingEye car park signs, has a prominent £100 charge...

[a link to GSV - click on it]

Are you local? Can you get a better picture?
No great rush for that though.

And of course a sign that says NO PARKING is hardly an invitation to park. But that may just mean no parking on the entrance ramp.

@KeithP I'm not local but will plan to go there and take some photos when preparing the WS

Coupon-mad

easytry16 said:

Coupon-mad said:

easytry16 said:

PCN was for £120 and £60 if paid within some days. 

It can't have been.  It was £100 reduced to £60 which is the most PEye ever do.

Do you have the PCN?  Or a photo of the sign?

What about the LBCCC?  How much was that demanding last month or whenever?

They never ever exceed £100. 


Your defence must state this:

The Particulars of Claim ('POC') are embarrassing, in that the Claimant fails to specify the amount of the parking charge, or damages, or whatever this imaginary '£120' - that appears out of the blue in the box on the right on the claim form - is supposed to represent.  Specifying in the POC the amount claimed under alleged contract or damages is fundamental.  The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

As a matter of fact, within the pseudo-regulatory framework that applies at the present time (before the Government imminently caps the sum at a lower bar to mirror more closely the Local Authority parking 'penalty' regime, later this year) parking charges cannot exceed £100.  This is the maximum set by the BPA Code of Practice at paragraph xx

Which says:

(quote it, go read it).  

Given that £120 is in clear breach of the maximum set in the BPA Code of Practice - with no evidence that this Claimant had special BPA dispensation to put £120 in their signs at this unremarkable location - the Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis (which us far in excess of whatever was stated on the signs) is reason enough to disallow the claim.

The signs cannot and did not set a contractual charge of £120, yet the claim box on the right of the N1 claim form has invented a sum of £120. Plucked it out if thin air.  What can the extra £20 be for, because it is not stated to be damages or interest; the claim has been exaggerated and (unlike claims from other greedy Parking Operators and roboclaim firms) this is appalling conduct, not previously seen from ParkingEye in the past decade.

It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield StoresLtd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that purported "admin costs" inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

Further and in the alternative, the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (the pay and display fee was paid).  The Defendant avers that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the Defendant, who did pay as soon as the Claimant's own system allowed.

The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (notwithstanding ParkingEye v Beavis) since the inflated sum in this instance is incorrectly calculated and it is punitive in nature: a punishment for the slow operation of the Claimant's own app.  Having paid the advertised fee for the parking space, it is not reasonable to expect honest, paying motorists to realise that the small delay (completely outside of the consumer's control) could result in a parking charge.

The Court's attention is drawn to the statutory duty imposed on all courts when construing consumer contracts (ref s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015) and the fact that this Act has been breached (terms and notices that are likely to be unfair).  Even if the Defendant had driven back out after say, 12-15 minutes, due to the difficulties in getting the app to work, a parking charge would have already been incurred.  This position is absurd, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and there is a clear imbalance of contractual position.

coupon-mad thanks see the table on the claim form

@Coupon-mad LBCCC show £100 and additional £20 added as cost of recovering a debt

Thanks for that revelation. A first for PEye.

This cements EVERYTHING I've said and now means people with Parking Eye claims can use the Template Defence...

However, the words I wrote for you are better for your case. 

The PCN was never £120.

They can't just add sums not stated on the contract (sign).

easytry16

Update defence, do I need append abuse of process (Skipton) case?

In the County Court

Claim Number: xxxxxxx

Between

ParkingEye Ltd

v

Xyour nameX

DEFENCE

Background

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract when parking at San Court Manchester Parking facility on 21/01/23. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time' at the San Court Manchester Parking facility.

3. When the Defendant's vehicle entered at San Court Manchester Parking facility, another car was blocking access which took defendant some time to navigate around, find a parking space and then park in a parking bay. Upon parking, the defendant noticed they would not get a phone signal in the building therefore had to come out of the car park facility to pay for parking using the Pay by Phone app, this took defendant around 10-12 minutes to pay after entering the car park, the defendant has evidence of the receipt of payment.

4. The Defendant returned to the vehicle and promptly exited the car park. While leaving the facility, the defendant must highlight that they were travelling with small children and thus fastening them safely to the car seat takes time. It took defendant around 8 minutes to leave the facility once everyone were all safely seated in our car. The alleged late exit of the Defendant’s vehicle from the car park was due to circumstances beyond the Defendant’s control, and as such constitutes frustration of contract.

5. As per the Private Parking Code of Practice, the Defendant was entitled to a minimum of 5 minutes consideration period, and an additional 10 minute grace period, totalling a minimum of 15 minutes additional time. In calculating the alleged overstay of the parking period using vehicle entry/exit time, as recorded by ANPR cameras, the Claimant has denied the Defendant these allowances. In addition, the code defines the parking period as follows, which the Claimant has not followed: "2.24 parking period - the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle). This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

6. In calculating the time duration of the alleged contract breach, the Claimant has recorded the duration of the parking event as the time between the Defendant’s vehicle entering and exiting the car park, as captured by ANPR cameras. It is denied that this is an accurate representation of the parking event, the contract between the Defendant and the Claimant only began when the Defendant paid for the parking using “paybyphone app”, which will be much later than the time the Defendant’s vehicle entered the car park. This is supported by National Car Parks Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2019] EWCA Civ 854 (20 May 2019) “The best analysis would seem to be that the contract was brought into being when the green button was pressed. On that basis, the pressing of the green button would represent acceptance by the customer of an offer by NCP to provide an hour's parking in return for the coins that the customer had by then paid into the machine.”

7. Defendant knew that no offence or mischief had occurred and honestly believed from initial research, that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of consumers.

8. This fact was later confirmed in all readings of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, ParkingEye themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.

 

Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process

9. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

10. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') are embarrassing, in that the Claimant fails to specify the amount of the parking charge, or damages, or whatever this imaginary '£120' - that appears out of the blue in the box on the right on the claim form - is supposed to represent.  Specifying in the POC the amount claimed under alleged contract or damages is fundamental.  The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

11. As a matter of fact, within the pseudo-regulatory framework that applies at the present time (before the Government imminently caps the sum at a lower bar to mirror more closely the Local Authority parking 'penalty' regime, later this year) parking charges cannot exceed £100.  This is the maximum set by the BPA Code of Practice at 19.5 Which says: IF the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100 If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance
19.6 if your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to investigation by the office of fair trading.

12. Given that £120 is in clear breach of the maximum set in the BPA Code of Practice - with no evidence that this Claimant had special BPA dispensation to put £120 in their signs at this unremarkable location - the Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis (which thus far in excess of whatever was stated on the signs) is reason enough to disallow the claim.

13. The signs cannot and did not set a contractual charge of £120, yet the claim box on the right of the N1 claim form has invented a sum of £120. Plucked it out of thin air.  What can the extra £20 be for, because it is not stated to be damages or interest; the claim has been exaggerated and (unlike claims from other greedy Parking Operators and roboclaim firms) this is appalling conduct, not previously seen from ParkingEye in the past decade.

14. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield StoresLtd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that purported "admin costs" inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

15. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (the pay and display fee was paid).  The Defendant avers that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the Defendant, who did pay as soon as the Claimant's own system allowed.

16. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (notwithstanding ParkingEye v Beavis) since the inflated sum in this instance is incorrectly calculated and it is punitive in nature: a punishment for the slow operation of the Claimant's own app.  Having paid the advertised fee for the parking space, it is not reasonable to expect honest, paying motorists to realise that the small delay (completely outside of the consumer's control) could result in a parking charge.

17. The Court's attention is drawn to the statutory duty imposed on all courts when construing consumer contracts (ref s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015) and the fact that this Act has been breached (terms and notices that are likely to be unfair).  Even if the Defendant had driven back out after say, 15-18 minutes, due to the difficulties in getting the app to work, a parking charge would have already been incurred.  This position is absurd, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and there is a clear imbalance of contractual position.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Name/signature

Date

easytry16

Coupon-mad said:

easytry16 said:

Coupon-mad said:

easytry16 said:

PCN was for £120 and £60 if paid within some days. 

It can't have been.  It was £100 reduced to £60 which is the most PEye ever do.

Do you have the PCN?  Or a photo of the sign?

What about the LBCCC?  How much was that demanding last month or whenever?

They never ever exceed £100. 


Your defence must state this:

The Particulars of Claim ('POC') are embarrassing, in that the Claimant fails to specify the amount of the parking charge, or damages, or whatever this imaginary '£120' - that appears out of the blue in the box on the right on the claim form - is supposed to represent.  Specifying in the POC the amount claimed under alleged contract or damages is fundamental.  The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

As a matter of fact, within the pseudo-regulatory framework that applies at the present time (before the Government imminently caps the sum at a lower bar to mirror more closely the Local Authority parking 'penalty' regime, later this year) parking charges cannot exceed £100.  This is the maximum set by the BPA Code of Practice at paragraph xx

Which says:

(quote it, go read it).  

Given that £120 is in clear breach of the maximum set in the BPA Code of Practice - with no evidence that this Claimant had special BPA dispensation to put £120 in their signs at this unremarkable location - the Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis (which us far in excess of whatever was stated on the signs) is reason enough to disallow the claim.

The signs cannot and did not set a contractual charge of £120, yet the claim box on the right of the N1 claim form has invented a sum of £120. Plucked it out if thin air.  What can the extra £20 be for, because it is not stated to be damages or interest; the claim has been exaggerated and (unlike claims from other greedy Parking Operators and roboclaim firms) this is appalling conduct, not previously seen from ParkingEye in the past decade.

It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield StoresLtd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that purported "admin costs" inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

Further and in the alternative, the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (the pay and display fee was paid).  The Defendant avers that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the Defendant, who did pay as soon as the Claimant's own system allowed.

The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (notwithstanding ParkingEye v Beavis) since the inflated sum in this instance is incorrectly calculated and it is punitive in nature: a punishment for the slow operation of the Claimant's own app.  Having paid the advertised fee for the parking space, it is not reasonable to expect honest, paying motorists to realise that the small delay (completely outside of the consumer's control) could result in a parking charge.

The Court's attention is drawn to the statutory duty imposed on all courts when construing consumer contracts (ref s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015) and the fact that this Act has been breached (terms and notices that are likely to be unfair).  Even if the Defendant had driven back out after say, 12-15 minutes, due to the difficulties in getting the app to work, a parking charge would have already been incurred.  This position is absurd, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and there is a clear imbalance of contractual position.

coupon-mad thanks see the table on the claim form

@Coupon-mad LBCCC show £100 and additional £20 added as cost of recovering a debt

Thanks for that revelation. A first for PEye.

This cements EVERYTHING I've said and now means people with Parking Eye claims can use the Template Defence...

However, the words I wrote for you are better for your case. 

The PCN was never £120.

They can't just add sums not stated on the contract (sign).

@Coupon-mad thanks I will get the defence sent.

Coupon-mad

do I need append abuse of process (Skipton) case?

No it is well out of date. Cases are not struck out for abuse of process any more.  Not sure how/why you are reading such old stuff, where are you getting this?

DO NOT SEND THAT DEFENCE!

You've managed to quote such an old version if the BPA CoP that it is EIGHT YEARS out of date.  You CANNOT argue that a charge must be a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' - that went out with the ark in 2015!

REMOVE ALL THIS:

This is the maximum set by the BPA Code of Practice at 19.5 Which says: IF the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100 If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance
19.6 if your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to investigation by the office of fair trading.


When I said 'go read it and quote it' I meant the CURRENT BPA CoP. Linked on the BPA website.

easytry16

Coupon-mad said:

do I need append abuse of process (Skipton) case?

No it is well out of date. Cases are not struck out for abuse of process any more.  Not sure how/why you are reading such old stuff, where are you getting this?

DO NOT SEND THAT DEFENCE!

You've managed to quote such an old version if the BPA CoP that it is EIGHT YEARS out of date.  You CANNOT argue that a charge must be a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' - that went out with the ark in 2015!

REMOVE ALL THIS:

This is the maximum set by the BPA Code of Practice at 19.5 Which says: IF the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100 If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance
19.6 if your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to investigation by the office of fair trading.


When I said 'go read it and quote it' I meant the CURRENT BPA CoP. Linked on the BPA website.

Ohh no, I have already sent it, am I allowed to send an updated one?