The great PPC debate

[looplotty]

So I have decided to start a thread to debate PRIVATE PARKING in general and the enforcement.

Private Parking and the laws (or lack of them) is always an emotive issue and with the amount of cowboy companies who have been prevented from clamping for various reasons or just see private parking as an easy way to get money does not help the image.

Private parking is here to stay and so are the companies that do it, many will come and go, the ones that do it right and enforce/win cases will stay.

I wonder, if it is possible to have a thread on here dedicated to a serious discussion, without insults from any party.

Any takers ?

[lamma]

Its all been done before. PPCs just have to act legally and lawfully. Try it.

[looplotty]

Put large signs stating parking is for permit holders only, the landowner will allow persons without permits to park for a charge of £100, reduced to £60 is payment made within 14days, The charge will increase to £150 + court costs if legal action is taken to recover charge. 1 charge per 24hrs can be given.

Do not park unless you agree to, and understand the conditions.

 

Car parks, Parking charge attached.

 

What is wrong with that ... Big signs of a type a reasonable person would see.

 

Do you not think the person should pay the charge if they decide to park ?

[havinastella]

Put large signs stating parking is for permit holders only, the landowner will allow persons without permits to park for a charge of £100, reduced to £60 is payment made within 14days, The charge will increase to £150 + court costs if legal action is taken to recover charge. 1 charge per 24hrs can be given.

Do not park unless you agree to, and understand the conditions.

 

Car parks, Parking charge attached.

 

What is wrong with that ... Big signs of a type a reasonable person would see.

 

Do you not think the person should pay the charge if they decide to park ?

 

 

So said permit holder parks up, unfortunately 1mm onto white line.

 

PPC can't get him for not having a permit, so decide to use this mythical new charge, parking over the white line.

 

Just behave, we all know PPC's have no place in this Country.

 

Jogs

[lamma]

There are a lot of statutes and regulation that PPC have to follow to act legally and lawfully. Signage is just one small issue. Getting it right is their problem and the sooner they do act legally and lawfully the better. They would win every case ! The only small problem they have with this in my view is that their business model disappears. Why not start a 'Legal and lawful PPC' subgroup at the BPA ?

[looplotty]

Well that charge would not be allowed then would it, he has a permit the signage clearly states the conditions to which parking is allowed and the conditions for paying a charge.

[looplotty]

There are a lot of statutes and regulation that PPC have to follow to act legally and lawfully. Signage is just one small issue. Getting it right is their problem and the sooner they do act legally and lawfully the better. They would win every case ! The only small problem they have with this in my view is that their business model disappears. Why not start a 'Legal and lawful PPC' subgroup at the BPA ?

 

I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.

[Al27]

I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.

 

It's commercial suicide to run a business that concentrates on taking people to court to gain income. Which is why nobody does it.

[patdavies]

I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.

 

1) you could only pursue the driver under the terms of any (mythical) implied contract. How does a PPC find out who was driving? There is no obligation on the RK to offer the information, nor can the RK be pursued instead - Google: privity of contract.

 

2) In order to charge for parking in the manner that you suggest, the PPC would need to hold a contract with the landowner far and above any normal commercial contract.

 

3) Your suggested charge of £100 increasing to £150 does not even begin to be a genuine pre-estimate of losses. How would you prove to a court that you have lost £100 because X parked. This charge is so high that it would seem to me to be a penalty - specifically forbidden by case law in English contracts.

 

There's three just to get you started...

[looplotty]

It is 2 fold, if a PPC works correctly so charges are issued correctly and once a case goes to court they have done everything correctly and win, then only totally crazy people would pay £150+ instead of £60.

 

There are plans for certain parking companies to work together for a uniform approach to the legal side (signage, tickets, letters, court paperwork).

[looplotty]

1) you could only pursue the driver under the terms of any (mythical) implied contract. How does a PPC find out who was driving? There is no obligation on the RK to offer the information, nor can the RK be pursued instead - Google: privity of contract.

 

2) In order to charge for parking in the manner that you suggest, the PPC would need to hold a contract with the landowner far and above any normal commercial contract.

 

3) Your suggested charge of £100 increasing to £150 does not even begin to be a genuine pre-estimate of losses. How would you prove to a court that you have lost £100 because X parked. This charge is so high that it would seem to me to be a penalty - specifically forbidden by case law in English contracts.

 

There's three just to get you started...

 

1 - Civil court is on balance of probabilities, I have yet to see a genuine case where a person did not know who was driving at the time a charge was issued, I appreciate there will be occasions but certainly not the normal.

 

2 - Contracts already exist that allow the PPC to pursue parking charges on behalf of the landowner

 

3 - If parking is £100 and it states £100, why is it a penalty. Check out birmingham airport, over £250 for 24hrs in the parking area next to the terminal, designated to be drop off but if you want to stop longer then you accept it will be an expensive stay as stated on the signage.

[Al27]

So what you're saying is that court is not easily winnable at the moment just because of poor signage, tickets and letters?

 

Which bring me back to the fact that even if all the above was spot on AND there were fundamental changes in 100+ years of established law leading to slam dunk wins every time, a business cannot scrape by on measly court winnings and a handful of CCJs a week.

 

Unless of course it would just be tool to get these 'crazy' people to pay up out of fear.

 

Oh, hold on. That's just the current business model isn't it?

[Al27]

3 - If parking is £100 and it states £100, why is it a penalty. Check out birmingham airport, over £250 for 24hrs in the parking area next to the terminal, designated to be drop off but if you want to stop longer then you accept it will be an expensive stay as stated on the signage

 

Got a link? I can only find £30 for 24 hours:

 

[My Real Name]

I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.

In the higher courts, maybe. In the lower courts, it can be a complete gamble.

[My Real Name]

Patdavies has made the cases pretty explicitly - privity, unfair terms and unlawful penalties covers just about as much as needs to be covered.

 

Their are no "correct" charges. Statute does not cover private parking charges. The numbers mooted earlier constitute penalty charges, and are unlawful.

[looplotty]

Sure Al:

 

Where to Park at Birmingham International Airport

 

 

Dropping off and picking up passengers

When dropping off passengers, use our convenient Drop & Go car park adjacent to the terminals and costing £1 for 15 minutes (£2 for 30 minutes).

 

 

I will dig out actual page that explains prices after 30mins ... it works out to be over £250 for 24hrs

[patdavies]

1 - Civil court is on balance of probabilities, I have yet to see a genuine case where a person did not know who was driving at the time a charge was issued, I appreciate there will be occasions but certainly not the normal.

 

 

You have either misunderstood my point or have deliberately not answered.

 

I was not arguing that the RK did not know. My point was that the RK is not required - short of direct judicial instruction - to reveal the information to a PPC.

 

So how does a PPC ascertain who the driver is in order to sue the correct person.

 

If a PPC takes the RK to court and the RK can prove that he/she was not driving, then the case instantly collapses as the wrong person has been sued. The RK has plenty of way to prove that he/she was not driving at the time without having to reveal who was.

 

Even if you (misguidedly IMO) attempt to rely on the balance of probabilities being that the RK is the driver, how would you manage if the RK is a company? Obviously a compnay cannot be the driver and is not required to name the driver.

[Al27]

They have barriers for paying on exit don't they? This, and its designation as a drop off point, would cover any unfair contract legislation I would have thought.

 

Invoicing £250 subsequently for 24 hours in an open car park nothing to do with dropping off passenger just because the airport down the road has such a facility wouldn't wash in court.

 

In theory, yes, you could pursue Mr Smith if he left his car in your airport drop off zone for a full 24 hours. I can't see how this would happen practically though?

[lamma]

All the (or this) PPC has to to do is take up the challenge against a worthy opponent. re regulations, as I have posted many times see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face and FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned. Has anyone vet seen a letter from a BPA PPC that actually follows the CoP. ALl that advice that Trading Standards gave them willfully ignored. there is much more that could be written about the regulations etc but I will never put that on a public forum least of all one populated by the PPCs. Talk about it in the bar after the next BPA. You never know, I may be listening.

[looplotty]

They have barriers for paying on exit don't they? This, and its designation as a drop off point, would cover any unfair contract legislation I would have thought.

 

Invoicing £250 subsequently for 24 hours in an open car park nothing to do with dropping off passenger just because the airport down the road has such a facility wouldn't wash in court.

 

In theory, yes, you could pursue Mr Smith if he left his car in your airport drop off zone for a full 24 hours. I can't see how this would happen practically though?

 

There are barriers and you are correct he would pay on exit, the point I was trying to make is the charges are on display and if he drove upto the barrier and said "this is too expensive, unfair term etc.." they would simply laugh at him point to the signs.

 

If he did not have the money they would (I presume) send an invoice to him, it went to court if unpaid and I do not see how he could have any defence and the charge would remain.

 

The same with any private car park (the location is irrelevant), if a charge is stated it should be paid and if someone does not want to pay the charge or thinks its too expensive they should have the option to remove the car and not park it.

[patdavies]

So you are continuing to avoid answering my question (post#17)?

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Is Perky on something? All these posts, it's like he's in some kind of manic phase in bipolar disorder. Still doesn't answer the questions though. First problem for PPCs, who was the driver? Second problem, is enforcement under contract law or tresspass? Third problem, if the latter how does the PPC sue as only the landowner can sue for tresspass? Fourth problem, can the PPC be sure that the court will rule that the driver (if they know who it was) saw the signage? Vine proves it can be prominent and still not seen. Fifth problem, showing the costs add up to the amount charged without being a penalty and without including court costs. Sixth problem, chasing the charge without frightening and intimidating the defendant (one of the hallmarks of a penalty). Seventh problem, even if you manage to negotiate Dunlop and penalties is it caught by UCTA? I could go on but you get the gist. That is why court action by PPCs will remain a minority sport for those who have petty vendettas to pursue but is not a realistic business. Concerted action by the PPCs will not change this. Anyone that tries to build a business on suing in court should sue for bankruptcy now. Or maybe raffle that caff.

[lamma]

Indeed. Plus other legislation the PPCs fall foul of as part of their business model. When completely ignored they have no idea of their victim, is the victim a solicitor or a policeman (or related to one) ? is the victim a hard criminal (or related to one) ? etc. Something must have upset loopy/perky - maybe takings are down ?

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Absolutely lamma, I wonder has he hit the bottle again? Has a penchant for it I understand. Certainly the behaviour over the past few days is weird, even for Perky. Business down, caff for sale, American property underwater, who knows what's behind it. Maybe the other PPCs he has "consulted" for are saying "you told us it would be different and we are still losing". Who knows. To be honest it doesn't matter a great deal. Perky's outfit is just a minnow, with hardly a pot to **** in. Any delusions of grandeur are just that or some other personality disorder.

[lamma]

It is very strange, delusions of adequacy perhaps ? Pointless trying to figure out the unfathomable.