Parking Eye - Parking Charge Notice - New rules?
Discussion
Zeeky said:
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.Zeeky said:
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.
Zeeky said:
At best one could say that the Court of Appeal judgment increases the scope for PPCs to enter into contracts with car park users.
That's exactly the point I was making. It's everything to do with the landowner granting the PPC, in the words of Lewison LJ, "the right to exploit the opportunity to make money from the motorists". That is an issue which has far wider ranging implications than the specifics of the VCS case.I'm not sure I see it as the big deal you might.
This judgment relates to the wording of the particular contracts in a particular situation between VCS, the land owner and consumers. VCS may have other contract wordings that do not relate to this judgment, not to mention each PPC will have its own contracts and wordings.
Parking evangelists should perhaps put their happy pills back in the cupboard.
This judgment relates to the wording of the particular contracts in a particular situation between VCS, the land owner and consumers. VCS may have other contract wordings that do not relate to this judgment, not to mention each PPC will have its own contracts and wordings.
Parking evangelists should perhaps put their happy pills back in the cupboard.
10 Pence Short said:
I'm not sure I see it as the big deal you might.
This judgment relates to the wording of the particular contracts in a particular situation between VCS, the land owner and consumers. VCS may have other contract wordings that do not relate to this judgment, not to mention each PPC will have its own contracts and wordings.
Indeed, but the critical question is how many were/are defective. The PPCs are extremely reluctant to divulge details. I can't recall which PPC was involved, but in one case they declined to do so citing commercial confidentiality and they were told to go where the sun doesn't shine. And rightly so.This judgment relates to the wording of the particular contracts in a particular situation between VCS, the land owner and consumers. VCS may have other contract wordings that do not relate to this judgment, not to mention each PPC will have its own contracts and wordings.
10 Pence Short said:
Parking evangelists should perhaps put their happy pills back in the cupboard.
Perhaps indeed. However if it wasn't such a parasitic industry, charges for contraventions were set at a less punitive level, and landowners adopted a greater sense of responsibility rather behaving like Pontius Pilate, then the majority of motorists would imo feel less sense of injustice.Lewison LJ's choice of the word 'exploit' speaks volumes. That's what many motorists feel. Exploited.
I have only copped two Local Authority PCNs in the last 20 years, one of which was promptly cancelled when I was able to prove that the CEO told a blatant lie: the other was my own fault for underestimating the time needed to pay in funds at the bank (horrendous queue due to only two cashiers windows open instead of the normal four at the peak lunchtime period), so I paid the discounted penalty.
Otoh I have never received a PPC 'invoice'. Maybe that is because I would rather park for free and walk rather than line the pockets of the likes of Simon Renshaw-Smith et al.
Red Devil said:
...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.
Both the Upper Tribunal and the CA judgements support the proposition that "a correctly drafted contract between a landowner and a PPC" could provide for enforceable contracts between the PPC and a driver. In both cases, the PPC has to rely on its contractual relationship with the landowner to be able to enforce agreements between car park users and itself.
The defence some people were relying on after the Upper Tribunal case - that is that only the landowner can enter into contracts with users of the car park - is a misconception. The Upper Tribunal case does not support this proposition.
Quick update.
If it were my ticket, I think I would have been in the ignore camp. However it's not my money to play with so I offered my opinion (and those from posters on this thread) to my boss, along with other resources and he decided best bet would be to appeal.
It turns out the rep in question has submitted his expenses, which contain receipts for the services adjoining the carpark, so an appeal was lodged on the basis that the car was parked there while the services were being used.
This was lodged a couple of weeks ago now and so far no acknowledgement. That it to say nothing on the appeal. We have however, received a number of final demands and fine increases for not paying on time.
I think I'm still in the ignore camp.
If it were my ticket, I think I would have been in the ignore camp. However it's not my money to play with so I offered my opinion (and those from posters on this thread) to my boss, along with other resources and he decided best bet would be to appeal.
It turns out the rep in question has submitted his expenses, which contain receipts for the services adjoining the carpark, so an appeal was lodged on the basis that the car was parked there while the services were being used.
This was lodged a couple of weeks ago now and so far no acknowledgement. That it to say nothing on the appeal. We have however, received a number of final demands and fine increases for not paying on time.
I think I'm still in the ignore camp.
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AO...
Page 14 Sections 22.1 to 22.8 - the last one in particular.
Also, Section 22.13 (page 15) requires an audit trail to be kept.
Was the appeal lodged within 28 days from receipt of the NTO? It weakens your case if it wasn't. That said, once it was lodged, by failing to respond to it the PPC has clearly breached the BPA CoP (I assume they are a member).
Given that the appeal was lodged over 5 months ago I reckon they know they are just winging it now. If they still insist on escalating it you still have the option of POPLA. The backlog of cases means that it will probably be next year before the assessor makes his/her ruling.
Page 14 Sections 22.1 to 22.8 - the last one in particular.
Also, Section 22.13 (page 15) requires an audit trail to be kept.
Was the appeal lodged within 28 days from receipt of the NTO? It weakens your case if it wasn't. That said, once it was lodged, by failing to respond to it the PPC has clearly breached the BPA CoP (I assume they are a member).
Given that the appeal was lodged over 5 months ago I reckon they know they are just winging it now. If they still insist on escalating it you still have the option of POPLA. The backlog of cases means that it will probably be next year before the assessor makes his/her ruling.
Thanks for the info. Yes, the appeal was lodged in plenty of time.
From what I'm seeing at the moment, it appears to be pot luck as to whether or not offenders are chased. To what extent, appears to be rather random too.
My bets are that our case will simply disappear in time. I will of course keep the thread updated if we hear otherwise!
From what I'm seeing at the moment, it appears to be pot luck as to whether or not offenders are chased. To what extent, appears to be rather random too.
My bets are that our case will simply disappear in time. I will of course keep the thread updated if we hear otherwise!
Well, I though this had gone away, but what do I know?!
We received a demand last week from a debt collecting company. Upon contacting Parking Eye, my boss was told that our appeal failed and they let us know this months ago. We received no such notification.
We've asked for a copy of the letter sent, but now it appears we are in a tit for tat battle, with them saying they've sent a letter and us saying we've not received it.
Not too sure what to do next, aside from either ignoring the threats again or simply getting it paid, as we've more profitable things to be doing with our time.
I'll re-read this thread again to refresh my memory of events!
On a side note, we run a fleet of 7 HGVs, which regularly park in services up and down the country. All parking is paid for by the drivers, who pass their receipts in with expenses. Over the last couple of months we've received numerous demands from parking companies, chasing money or unpaid parking on these vehicles. So I'm now having to spend my time replying to them with copies of the receipts to prove payment. Is anyone else having similar issues? We've received 11 demands in the last month, all which were paid for and receipted.
We received a demand last week from a debt collecting company. Upon contacting Parking Eye, my boss was told that our appeal failed and they let us know this months ago. We received no such notification.
We've asked for a copy of the letter sent, but now it appears we are in a tit for tat battle, with them saying they've sent a letter and us saying we've not received it.
Not too sure what to do next, aside from either ignoring the threats again or simply getting it paid, as we've more profitable things to be doing with our time.
I'll re-read this thread again to refresh my memory of events!
On a side note, we run a fleet of 7 HGVs, which regularly park in services up and down the country. All parking is paid for by the drivers, who pass their receipts in with expenses. Over the last couple of months we've received numerous demands from parking companies, chasing money or unpaid parking on these vehicles. So I'm now having to spend my time replying to them with copies of the receipts to prove payment. Is anyone else having similar issues? We've received 11 demands in the last month, all which were paid for and receipted.
sanguinary said:
Well, I though this had gone away, but what do I know?!
We received a demand last week from a debt collecting company. Upon contacting Parking Eye, my boss was told that our appeal failed and they let us know this months ago. We received no such notification.
We've asked for a copy of the letter sent, but now it appears we are in a tit for tat battle, with them saying they've sent a letter and us saying we've not received it.
Not too sure what to do next, aside from either ignoring the threats again or simply getting it paid, as we've more profitable things to be doing with our time.
I would definitely not recommend ignoring. It will go against you should you end up in court. It's your call whether to roll over but bear in mind that the PPC business model is based on you doing just that. We received a demand last week from a debt collecting company. Upon contacting Parking Eye, my boss was told that our appeal failed and they let us know this months ago. We received no such notification.
We've asked for a copy of the letter sent, but now it appears we are in a tit for tat battle, with them saying they've sent a letter and us saying we've not received it.
Not too sure what to do next, aside from either ignoring the threats again or simply getting it paid, as we've more profitable things to be doing with our time.
If it were me I would tell the DCA to cease and desist as the matter is in dispute with the creditor. If they then persist remind them that ignoring this fact is considered oppressive and contrary to the OFT's Debt Collection Guidance. It is also a potential breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.
The PPC should respond positively to your request for a copy of the letter. It wouldn't be the first time one has claimed to have sent a rejection letter when they have done no such thing. If they fail to provide a copy it won't go down well should they try to take you to court. The court will expect the established appeals system to be used before taking up its time. At present you have been denied the opportunity to do so Any letter they do send must tell you how to appeal and include a POPLA code. Bear in mind that if the missing letter included a code it will have timed out long ago. So ask them to issue a new one.
Then go here - http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker... - to check its validity and date of issue. That is important as there is a time limit within which an appeal must be submitted. Some PPCs are not above delaying sending out the code in order to reduce that window by an unacceptable margin.
If you do decide not to cave I suggest you spend a little time on MSE and Pepipoo to bone up on what grounds you are going to use in any POPLA appeal. If it ever gets as far as court then check the Parking Prankster's pages re PE.
sanguinary said:
On a side note, we run a fleet of 7 HGVs, which regularly park in services up and down the country. All parking is paid for by the drivers, who pass their receipts in with expenses. Over the last couple of months we've received numerous demands from parking companies, chasing money or unpaid parking on these vehicles. So I'm now having to spend my time replying to them with copies of the receipts to prove payment. Is anyone else having similar issues? We've received 11 demands in the last month, all which were paid for and receipted.
Send a letter to each company you have to prove payment notifying them that each time you are required to do so again you will charge them £60.^ That's exactly what we have done.
On the original matter of the 'Parking Charge' we've had no alternative but to pay it. It stinks, but the amount of time spent on it so far is much more than the original cost. I'm sure that's why most of the fines are paid anyway.
We asked for a receipt of payment to be emailed. Nothing received so far.... horrible company to deal with.
Right, time to get on with what we do and make some money!
Thanks for all the responses on this, it's been really helpful.
On the original matter of the 'Parking Charge' we've had no alternative but to pay it. It stinks, but the amount of time spent on it so far is much more than the original cost. I'm sure that's why most of the fines are paid anyway.
We asked for a receipt of payment to be emailed. Nothing received so far.... horrible company to deal with.
Right, time to get on with what we do and make some money!
Thanks for all the responses on this, it's been really helpful.
sanguinary said:
On a side note, we run a fleet of 7 HGVs, which regularly park in services up and down the country. All parking is paid for by the drivers, who pass their receipts in with expenses. Over the last couple of months we've received numerous demands from parking companies, chasing money or unpaid parking on these vehicles. So I'm now having to spend my time replying to them with copies of the receipts to prove payment. Is anyone else having similar issues? We've received 11 demands in the last month, all which were paid for and receipted.
It could well be that this is a standard practice for some of these companies now. I used the car park at South Mimms last year and paid for some additional time, but was still sent a PCN by Parking Eye. The manager with whom I spoke at the services had the ticket cancelled immediately without a fuss, which rather argued that it was a routine occurrence.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff