Another Parking charge Plymouth Port - Appeal Rejected

Fruitcake

With regards to this from PE,

"It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract."

This may or may not be relevant on "relevant land" (pardon the pun) but it is not relevant on "non-relevant land" since the contract can only be formed with the driver and not the keeper. 

PE have disclosed the existence of a principal, (the landowner) and is acting as an agent for the principle (the landowner). This means PE are personally liable on the contract. It works both ways. Fairlie v Fenton means the operator can sue the motorist if the motorist can sue the operator, which is not the case because the PoFA allows the operator to lawfully obtain the keeper's details, but (unless for example there was a data breach) the keeper cannot sue the operator because they are not a party to the contract nor are they the principal, therefore F v F is not applicable.

(I think)

Castle

Fruitcake said:

With regards to this from PE,

"It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract."

This may or may not be relevant on "relevant land" (pardon the pun) but it is not relevant on "non-relevant land" since the contract can only be formed with the driver and not the keeper. 

That would also be true on relevant land for a non driving keeper; only the driver is a party to the contract.

Dourn

Well my rebuttal of the "evidence pack" has been sent, had to whittle it down to meet the 10,000-character limit they enforce. Was going to post it here to get some advice on it, but ran out of time as it has to be submitted by tonight.

Dourn

Well, 6 weeks later had a response - a successful appeal, agreeing with the "not relevant land" argument, yay. Thanks for all the advice on here.
Will post the response in the POPLA Decisions thread.

Umkomaas

Dourn said:

Well, 6 weeks later had a response - a successful appeal, agreeing with the "not relevant land" argument, yay. Thanks for all the advice on here.
Will post the response in the POPLA Decisions thread.

Well done. I've commented on your post in the POPLA Decision thread. I think this is ripe for a complaint to the DVLA. 

Dourn

Umkomaas said:

Dourn said:

Well, 6 weeks later had a response - a successful appeal, agreeing with the "not relevant land" argument, yay. Thanks for all the advice on here.
Will post the response in the POPLA Decisions thread.

Well done. I've commented on your post in the POPLA Decision thread. I think this is ripe for a complaint to the DVLA. 

Thank you - yes, that's a good idea re. DVLA, I'll do that.
It did occur to me, how many other keepers have been stung by this scam.

Fruitcake

@Dourn, here are the complaint email addresses for the DVLA and the DVLA KADOE team.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk 

and

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk