Premier Park Ltd-Pay & Display-Acting as Agent, not Principal.

Castle

The company accounts for the year ended 31st March 2022 includes a note 2.5 on page 15 in which the Directors now consider that the company is acting as an agent, rather than the principal in Pay & Display car parks. (The change in policy has been "back-dated" to 1st April 2020).
PREMIER PARK LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk)

1505grandad

I admit I know nothing about this so it is probably irrelevant but Googling:-

"what does it mean that company is acting as an agent, rather than the principal in Pay & Display car parks"

produces the following:-

"If the parking operator is merely acting on behalf of the landlord then normally the operator is acting as an agent. In these circumstances the parking operator has no rights to recover the debt and it is for the principal (ie the landlord) to do so."

As I say I have probably completely got the wrong end of the stick but does this mean that PP cannot therefore chase debt/court etc. re pcn's?

Coupon-mad

Wonder why? VAT?

XDA

1505grandad said:

I admit I know nothing about this so it is probably irrelevant but Googling:-

"what does it mean that company is acting as an agent, rather than the principal in Pay & Display car parks"

produces the following:-

"If the parking operator is merely acting on behalf of the landlord then normally the operator is acting as an agent. In these circumstances the parking operator has no rights to recover the debt and it is for the principal (ie the landlord) to do so."

As I say I have probably completely got the wrong end of the stick but does this mean that PP cannot therefore chase debt/court etc. re pcn's?

I’m currently fighting a Premier Park Ltd PCN, will this be relevant to me and something I can use in my appeal?

Coupon-mad

Yes and no. POPLA won't get it.

XDA

Coupon-mad said:

Yes and no. POPLA won't get it.

Only useful should things ever escalate to court?

Half_way

XDA said:

1505grandad said:

I admit I know nothing about this so it is probably irrelevant but Googling:-

"what does it mean that company is acting as an agent, rather than the principal in Pay & Display car parks"

produces the following:-

"If the parking operator is merely acting on behalf of the landlord then normally the operator is acting as an agent. In these circumstances the parking operator has no rights to recover the debt and it is for the principal (ie the landlord) to do so."

As I say I have probably completely got the wrong end of the stick but does this mean that PP cannot therefore chase debt/court etc. re pcn's?

I’m currently fighting a Premier Park Ltd PCN, will this be relevant to me and something I can use in my appeal?

Might be worth continuing on your post referencing this, and keeping this as a news discussion

FrankCannon

Perhaps it's something that @bargepole and @Johnersh are qualified to comment on.

Johnersh

Most of these are similar to distribution, which is different to an agency where usually the agent is not a party to contracts arranged for their principal.

If drawn correctly, the parking contract between land owner (or authorised property agent) and the PPC authorises the PPC to issue, collect and if necessary litigate. The end users contract is directly with the PPC (the sign) not the landowner. So it is that the PPC can bring a claim as there is a direct relationship with the driver of the vehicle. The law sees to it (in very specific circumstances) that the relationship can be transferred to the keeper. Without PoFA it cannot be.

I don't see this as a panacea, but there are lots of Ifs in this (as is ever the case) regarding the contracts. 

As a general rule, i remain of the view that forumites need to select best arguments carefully and avoid snowballing with issues that *might* be relevant and which have the effect of obscuring or watering down the very best points.

Finally, i shall not be sucked into a lengthy discussion of agency law which is not my bag. It can be complex and would be uniquely different for each set of facts/dispute.

bargepole

Johnersh said:

Most of these are similar to distribution, which is different to an agency where usually the agent is not a party to contracts arranged for their principal.

If drawn correctly, the parking contract between land owner (or authorised property agent) and the PPC authorises the PPC to issue, collect and if necessary litigate. The end users contract is directly with the PPC (the sign) not the landowner. So it is that the PPC can bring a claim as there is a direct relationship with the driver of the vehicle. The law sees to it (in very specific circumstances) that the relationship can be transferred to the keeper. Without PoFA it cannot be.

I don't see this as a panacea, but there are lots of Ifs in this (as is ever the case) regarding the contracts. 

As a general rule, i remain of the view that forumites need to select best arguments carefully and avoid snowballing with issues that *might* be relevant and which have the effect of obscuring or watering down the very best points.

Finally, i shall not be sucked into a lengthy discussion of agency law which is not my bag. It can be complex and would be uniquely different for each set of facts/dispute.

Quite right, which is why I'm not keen on 'template' defences which try to throw the kitchen sink at the claim, when some of the arguments are irrelevant. Much better to focus on the particular facts, and concentrate on the strongest arguments.

With regard to agency, much will depend on the signage. I've had cases where the name of the landowner is prominently displayed at the top of the sign, with the identity of the PPC shown in the smaller print at the bottom.

I have successfully argued in such cases that, on any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party is the landowner, not the PPC, and therefore the PPC as an agent, has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton.