Parking Eye - Parking Charge Notice - New rules?
Discussion
Red Devil said:
May I suggest you read paragraphs 21-31 again. In particular paragraph 30 -
Lewison LJ "What it obtained under the contract (apart from the small fees charged for permits and signage) was the right to exploit the opportunity to make money from the motorists"
I submit the judgment on the breach of contract issue is far more wide ranging that you are suggesting.
As I read it, the dispute ultimately boils down to a simple question:- are the 'penalty' charges, levied on permit holders for parking outside of the bays provided, consideration for parking, or damages for either trespass or breach of contract.Lewison LJ "What it obtained under the contract (apart from the small fees charged for permits and signage) was the right to exploit the opportunity to make money from the motorists"
I submit the judgment on the breach of contract issue is far more wide ranging that you are suggesting.
HMRC wanted to argue that it was consideration on behalf of the contract between land owner and PPC. This was rejected.
The PPCs (for it would affect many of them, I would imagine) won.
Therefore penalty charges levied on permit holders for not parking in provided bays are damages and therefore not subject to VAT. This is what the PPCs wanted.
I am unsure what new effect you would say this ruling has on a typical pay and display or limited-time parking scenario and any resultant charge for trespass or breach of contract?
I've got my first parking ticket this week.
I paid for a weekly ticket but it looks like I parked in a season ticket bay rather than a pay and display bay. They class a monthly ticket as a season ticket, but not a weekly so I got a parking charge notice. Obviously I didn't know that when I parked (its in tiny writing on the pay and display machine, but you don't buy weekly tickets from the machine)
I'm going to write back and tell them that I'll pay for their loss if they will provide me with an invoice for just that (which is zero), but I will not pay their "fine".
If they then keep writing back to me with various threatening letters, can I send them a contract, and start charging them for my time?
If they decide to sue me for the money, I can then counter sue
I paid for a weekly ticket but it looks like I parked in a season ticket bay rather than a pay and display bay. They class a monthly ticket as a season ticket, but not a weekly so I got a parking charge notice. Obviously I didn't know that when I parked (its in tiny writing on the pay and display machine, but you don't buy weekly tickets from the machine)
I'm going to write back and tell them that I'll pay for their loss if they will provide me with an invoice for just that (which is zero), but I will not pay their "fine".
If they then keep writing back to me with various threatening letters, can I send them a contract, and start charging them for my time?
If they decide to sue me for the money, I can then counter sue
98elise said:
I've got my first parking ticket this week.
I paid for a weekly ticket but it looks like I parked in a season ticket bay rather than a pay and display bay. They class a monthly ticket as a season ticket, but not a weekly so I got a parking charge notice. Obviously I didn't know that when I parked (its in tiny writing on the pay and display machine, but you don't buy weekly tickets from the machine)
I'm going to write back and tell them that I'll pay for their loss if they will provide me with an invoice for just that (which is zero), but I will not pay their "fine".
If they then keep writing back to me with various threatening letters, can I send them a contract, and start charging them for my time?
If they decide to sue me for the money, I can then counter sue
The problem you have is that the contract in question of parking payments was enacted when you chose to park.I paid for a weekly ticket but it looks like I parked in a season ticket bay rather than a pay and display bay. They class a monthly ticket as a season ticket, but not a weekly so I got a parking charge notice. Obviously I didn't know that when I parked (its in tiny writing on the pay and display machine, but you don't buy weekly tickets from the machine)
I'm going to write back and tell them that I'll pay for their loss if they will provide me with an invoice for just that (which is zero), but I will not pay their "fine".
If they then keep writing back to me with various threatening letters, can I send them a contract, and start charging them for my time?
If they decide to sue me for the money, I can then counter sue
Any further contracts you issue personally to the PPC is up to them whether they agree to it or not. (Which they obviously won't). So I don't think you'll be able to levvy any time charge to the PPC.
The issue that may be supportive to your case is the legality of the signage. If the text is unreasonably small or the sign is located in an unreasonable location, then a judge may find the PPC at fault for not displaying the contract of parking to potential customers.
PE are doing this a LOT at the moment, and there is a growing case for not ignoring their bumph at this time...
Other PPCs can generally - currently - be ignored, but an appeal to POPLA costs them money and at least shows recognition of the PPC (which will help in the defendant's favour in any future court case) if not the alleged debt.
Other PPCs can generally - currently - be ignored, but an appeal to POPLA costs them money and at least shows recognition of the PPC (which will help in the defendant's favour in any future court case) if not the alleged debt.
Kozy said:
My brother is currently being taken to court (not threats, actual court summons) by Parking Eye for non payment.
They DO do it, so it really is a gamble to just throw them in the bin.
Was this a supermarket or similar retail establishment with a period of free parking allowed? If so you need to check the LA planning consent because landholders/PPCs have been known to breach it by reducing the time stipulated therein by the Council. Also, does the car park have ANPR and do the signs say that Blue badge holders are exempt? They DO do it, so it really is a gamble to just throw them in the bin.
aw51 121565 said:
PE are doing this a LOT at the moment, and there is a growing case for not ignoring their bumph at this time...
Other PPCs can generally - currently - be ignored, but an appeal to POPLA costs them money and at least shows recognition of the PPC (which will help in the defendant's favour in any future court case) if not the alleged debt.
What is your advice to those who have received a County Court claim against them because they took your earlier advice to ignore the demand for payment, or to appeal using POPLA to increase the parking company's costs in furtherance of your crusade against these charges and then ignore further correspondence?Other PPCs can generally - currently - be ignored, but an appeal to POPLA costs them money and at least shows recognition of the PPC (which will help in the defendant's favour in any future court case) if not the alleged debt.
Red Devil said:
Was this a supermarket or similar retail establishment with a period of free parking allowed? If so you need to check the LA planning consent because landholders/PPCs have been known to breach it by reducing the time stipulated therein by the Council. Also, does the car park have ANPR and do the signs say that Blue badge holders are exempt?
I know it was run by ANPR, but that is all I know. He did not vacate the car at any point, and also had not received the letters as the car is registered at our parents on the IOW, and he now lives in Southampton. Red Devil said:
Was this a supermarket or similar retail establishment with a period of free parking allowed? If so you need to check the LA planning consent because landholders/PPCs have been known to breach it by reducing the time stipulated therein by the Council. Also, does the car park have ANPR and do the signs say that Blue badge holders are exempt?
I'm not sure the court would accept that a breach of a planning contract between the landowner and the local authority would annul the contract between the PPC and consumer.Kozy said:
My brother is currently being taken to court (not threats, actual court summons) by Parking Eye for non payment.
They DO do it, so it really is a gamble to just throw them in the bin.
Evidence of this? Scanned summons without his address etc. They will threaten court albeit I've never heard of a single person ending up there.They DO do it, so it really is a gamble to just throw them in the bin.
TX.
The usual "'fine' totally out of proportion to actual losses suffered by claimant".
He will offer to pay the cost of an hours parking, plus the cost of details from DVLA at mediation. If they do not accept, it'll go into court and the judge will most likely decide that that is all he is required to pay, plus court costs.
That is how the last case that went to court went down. Although in that one, the defendant made no offer to pay, and as such the breach of contract applied and he had to pay the court costs. We are hoping that with an offer to pay the full costs of the parking (£2.20 +£2.50 DVLA cost), that he might be able to dodge the court costs.
He will offer to pay the cost of an hours parking, plus the cost of details from DVLA at mediation. If they do not accept, it'll go into court and the judge will most likely decide that that is all he is required to pay, plus court costs.
That is how the last case that went to court went down. Although in that one, the defendant made no offer to pay, and as such the breach of contract applied and he had to pay the court costs. We are hoping that with an offer to pay the full costs of the parking (£2.20 +£2.50 DVLA cost), that he might be able to dodge the court costs.
That doesn't sound like a defence. That's an admission but with disagreement over the amount of damages.
I'd be asking the other side for a schedule of their losses (if it hasn't been provided already). Look at that and decide if there are any costs you can realistically persuade the court are unrealistic or unable to be considered damages.
If you can't, then offer to pay before hitting mediation or court.
I'd be asking the other side for a schedule of their losses (if it hasn't been provided already). Look at that and decide if there are any costs you can realistically persuade the court are unrealistic or unable to be considered damages.
If you can't, then offer to pay before hitting mediation or court.
10 Pence Short said:
Red Devil said:
Was this a supermarket or similar retail establishment with a period of free parking allowed? If so you need to check the LA planning consent because landholders/PPCs have been known to breach it by reducing the time stipulated therein by the Council. Also, does the car park have ANPR and do the signs say that Blue badge holders are exempt?
I'm not sure the court would accept that a breach of a planning contract between the landowner and the local authority would annul the contract between the PPC and consumer.Given that its signage is null and void as it clearly breached the LA's planning consent for the land in question, do you really believe that the PPC would be able to enforce its contract terms?
10 Pence Short said:
That doesn't sound like a defence. That's an admission but with disagreement over the amount of damages.
I'd be asking the other side for a schedule of their losses (if it hasn't been provided already). Look at that and decide if there are any costs you can realistically persuade the court are unrealistic or unable to be considered damages.
If you can't, then offer to pay before hitting mediation or court.
I personally have nothing to do with it, he is getting the relevant advice from Pepipoo and has a properly written legal defence from one of the legal bods there. It's far more in depth than I could ever hope to understand, I didn't read the full script as I quickly got lost but I am sure it will do the trick.I'd be asking the other side for a schedule of their losses (if it hasn't been provided already). Look at that and decide if there are any costs you can realistically persuade the court are unrealistic or unable to be considered damages.
If you can't, then offer to pay before hitting mediation or court.
10 Pence Short said:
As I read it, the dispute ultimately boils down to a simple question:- are the 'penalty' charges, levied on permit holders for parking outside of the bays provided, consideration for parking, or damages for either trespass or breach of contract.
HMRC wanted to argue that it was consideration on behalf of the contract between land owner and PPC. This was rejected.
The PPCs (for it would affect many of them, I would imagine) won.
Therefore penalty charges levied on permit holders for not parking in provided bays are damages and therefore not subject to VAT. This is what the PPCs wanted.
I am unsure what new effect you would say this ruling has on a typical pay and display or limited-time parking scenario and any resultant charge for trespass or breach of contract?
See below.HMRC wanted to argue that it was consideration on behalf of the contract between land owner and PPC. This was rejected.
The PPCs (for it would affect many of them, I would imagine) won.
Therefore penalty charges levied on permit holders for not parking in provided bays are damages and therefore not subject to VAT. This is what the PPCs wanted.
I am unsure what new effect you would say this ruling has on a typical pay and display or limited-time parking scenario and any resultant charge for trespass or breach of contract?
10 Pence Short said:
Just to add, if the contract between VCS (and/or others) and land owners for general parking control is similar to the one examined in this case for permit scenarios, it contradicts and overrules the Ibbotson judgment (non binding though it was).
You got there in the end. 
The VAT aspect is irrelevant to MoPs. It is the contract issue which is crucial.
Lewison LJ said:
The Upper Tribunal's reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning.
The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it.
Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking. So it is necessary to consider whether it did.
VCS can in fact perform the contract because the landowner allows it to.
This judgment appears to me to have much wider implications than just the permit issue which was being tried. Lewison LJ made a statement of principle. A correctly drafted contract between a landowner and a PPC removes the defence which some have been relying on (the UT ruling) prior to the CoA finding. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it.
Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking. So it is necessary to consider whether it did.
VCS can in fact perform the contract because the landowner allows it to.
It relies on the details of the contracts between the land owner and PPC and then consumer and PPC in each individual case.
I wouldn't get excited over the judgment either way, to be honest.
The only judgment of interest will be if a High Court or above makes a ruling on disputed quantum to set a precedent.
Wranglings over contracts is something PPCs and land owners chan change in a flash.
I wouldn't get excited over the judgment either way, to be honest.
The only judgment of interest will be if a High Court or above makes a ruling on disputed quantum to set a precedent.
Wranglings over contracts is something PPCs and land owners chan change in a flash.
Red Devil said:
... Lewison LJ made a statement of principle. A correctly drafted contract between a landowner and a PPC removes the defence which some have been relying on (the UT ruling) prior to the CoA finding.
You have misunderstood both judgments. The Upper Tribunal did not find that a PPC in general could not enter into a contract with a landowner that enabled the PPC to enter into contracts with users of the car park. The Upper Tribunal found that the particular contract between VCS and the landowner did not enable VCS to enter into such contracts. It did not preclude "a correctly drafted contract" from doing so.The CA has criticised the legal reasoning applied to the facts in the VCS case and has decided that VCS was enabled to contract with car park users.
At best one could say that the Court of Appeal judgment increases the scope for PPCs to enter into contracts with car park users.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff