We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
POPLA refusal
Comments
-
Napier may be hardnosed but I would not say that they are vindictive, in both the Yau and Lander cases the appellants brought their problems upon themselves, so much so in Mr Yau's case that Napier persuaded the judge to award them all their costs, some £800+.
Napier are part of a leisure company and own many of the car parks they patrol. PP blogged about them recently
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-grace-period-is-not-free-parking.html
Think you may have been mistaken on the Yau costs - the link I gave to the transcript showed £190 but Yau got £90 back for a previous wasted hearing so it cost him £100. (Unless Napier appealed on costs and won a later case.)0 -
thanks for the information
It's a kick in the knackers really. I'd understand if I had deliberately avoided payment but the fact is I did pay, I had no intention of not paying. Personally I think its taking the !!!! but I guess this is how they make their money, thy have a sign which states the T&Cs. In future I know to ensure as I leave my vehicle that the ticket is in a clear location for the operator to be able to see it.
think I need to chalk this up as one for experience. In your opinions am I best to just pay the £80 and be done with it or await the tirade of letters and phone calls to see where they lead?0 -
Think you may have been mistaken on the Yau costs - the link I gave to the transcript showed £190 but Yau got £90 back for a previous wasted hearing so it cost him £100. (Unless Napier appealed on costs and won a later case.)
It was my mistake, it was Mr Lander.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
smokemeakipper wrote: »thanks for the information
It's a kick in the knackers really. ... In your opinions am I best to just pay the £80 and be done with it or await the tirade of letters and phone calls to see where they lead?
You do not have to pay this without a fight. You can tough it out and see whether they take you to court or not.
The judge, (who is allowed to consider mitigation), will then have to decide whether the money claimed is to compensate the PPC for a genuine loss as a direct result of the ticket flutter, (which is most unlikely), an unenfoceable penalty, or an unfair term in a consumer contract.
In many such cases the judge has found that the money claimed is an unfair penalty, and you win.
In your position I would fight, but I have the time, money and inclination so to doYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Trouble is, we don't know what they are going to do. Given that you paid, they may feel they don't have strong enough grounds to bring a court claim against you. Or then again they might. We know they do bring court claims, but unlike some operators they're not so big that we know their M.O. inside-out.
Only you can decide really. Pay up or tough it out.Je suis Charlie.0 -
thanks.
I fully appreciate you are giving an opinion and I value it.
I really don't think I have the time nor can I hold the risk of it going against me with a family of 4 I cant afford to have it go against me.
I have the inclination to defend myself as I feel this situation is highly unreasonable however I can see that the signs outline the conditions and I failed to meet one of them conditions, there are grounds on both sides.
I think I'll sleep on it. calm down a bit and see where I want to take it.0 -
You could try this.
Write to Napier saying that, despite the POPLA decision, you intend to fight this. You remind them that, at the time of issuing the charge, this has to be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss at that point.
Now, as you had paid the charge - copy of ticket enclosed - their real loss was zero and it was only the fact that the ticket was not on the dashboard that kicked all of this off.
Given that you accept some of the blame, and that if this goes as far as court, you will defend it on the basis of no loss was sustained, you are prepared to make an offer - without prejudice - of £40? or so to settle matters.
The letter would be headed Without Prejudice. The amount you offer is entirely up to you but it needs to be more than a token £5.
I am only suggesting this as a pre-emptive move before, as I suspect, you agree to pay the charge. I am with the Deep and would fight it, but each of us has our own personal circumstances and I would not wish to influence you either way.
lastly, you could approach these guys. I can vouch for them - they are some regulars from here. They may not want to take on your case at this late stage, but if they do, you only "lose" £16
http://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk/0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards