Private Parking

[Homer67]

I have decided to start a PE thread as there has been so much activity by PE lately other threads are getting taken off topic by issues raised about PE's ability to make claims in court.

 

The first thing I want to question is why have PE suddenly decided to flood the courts with these claims?

 

Has it been proved how many cases are actually registered with the courts and how many have actually gone all the way? (regardless of result)

 

How many of these claims have resulted in a a successful claim for PE? (we can get the details later whether they were undefended etc)

 

Peanuts allergy posted the below information on another thread, my question to Peanuts allergy is this post appears to be presumption on your part, do you have evidence to state this is fact?

 

PE lose about 3/10 appeals, (average PPC loses about half).

So a chance to kill it before it starts.

 

From other posts, PE also seem to have targeted ignorers with court, possibly as they suit the simple computerised bulk system they have set up.

ANPR flags the car, computer sees no response, computer feeds the claim into the system.

Anything else seems to need manual intervention, which doesn't seem to be as prolific at the moment.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Conniff
correct typo

[peanutsallergy]

Read all the links on the other threads.

 

They're all there.

[steampowered]

These claims haven't been through the system yet. A lot of them were only issued in June.

[Homer67]

Read all the links on the other threads.

 

They're all there.

 

So you're not prepared to answer then?

[DBC]

It appears that this is all down to PE's new "litigation manager" who apparently wants to make a name for herself by issuing as many court papers as she can. Some people think that this tactic is being used as further link in the "threatogram" chain, and that PE are hoping that plenty of people will just cave in and pay when they see those court papers. Most of the court papers are going to previous "ignorers", some which date back months. At the same time PE are losing quite a few POPLA appeals because they cannot produce a contract or an actual pre-estimate of loss. Thus a switch to soft targets who had thought that PE had forgotton about them.

[Homer67]

That explains the sudden flurry of cases I guess, my concern is that court papers aside, can we confirm that they still cannot claim anything in court other than actual losses (and court costs I suppose, if they were to be awarded the decision) and only then if they can provide a contract?

 

What about the legal position that only the landowner can take legal action to reclaim actual losses?

[peanutsallergy]

Seems not to have mattered to the judge in the cases we know PPC's have won, maybe they haven't been well defended, and the latest one on PE's news page was to the tune of the £100 parking charge, and £255 costs.

Payable to PE.

 

So no reason to doubt it happens, and could happen again.

[DBC]

Well POPLA are saying that, until they see evidence of an actual loss are that PE can produce a proper contract then it's "case dismissed". I imagine that the courts would find the same way. In fact PE are fully aware of this as shown by the PE v Smith case of a couple of years ago. Although PE won the case, all they were awarded was £15 ( two P&D tickets plus the DVLA fee) and not the hundreds of pounds they were claiming. In other words they were only awarded the true loss and not some imaginary figure dreamd up by PE. Nothing has changed to contract law since then.

[Homer67]

Seems not to have mattered to the judge in the cases we know PPC's have won, maybe they haven't been well defended, and the latest one on PE's news page was to the tune of the £100 parking charge, and £255 costs.

Payable to PE.

 

So no reason to doubt it happens, and could happen again.

 

I thought you had flounced off...

 

How many cases have the PPC's won that were defended with the correct defence that we all know?

 

What was the defence presented in the latest case on PE's page that you have quoted? The actual defence not the one that PE say was presented.

[peanutsallergy]

I thought you had flounced off...

 

How many cases have the PPC's won that were defended with the correct defence that we all know?

 

What was the defence presented in the latest case on PE's page that you have quoted? The actual defence not the one that PE say was presented.

 

No, I said I wouldn't answer any more dumb questions from you.

 

But if I was the judge, the registered keeper, or LPC, I'd answer that.

[steampowered]

That explains the sudden flurry of cases I guess, my concern is that court papers aside, can we confirm that they still cannot claim anything in court other than actual losses (and court costs I suppose, if they were to be awarded the decision) and only then if they can provide a contract?

 

What about the legal position that only the landowner can take legal action to reclaim actual losses?

 

It depends on how people defend these claims. The courts are unlikely to raise arguments themselves, they will only consider arguments raised by the parties. In my view the key argument for these cases is that the charge is an unenforceable penalty clause.

 

The idea that only the landowner can take legal action is no longer good law following passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, the PPC still requires authority from the landowner - and should be put to proof that it has such authority.

 

I imagine that people who defend only on the basis that the PPC is not the landowner, or only on the basis that the PPC has not proven any loss without mentioning the penalty argument, are likely to end up losing. This makes it difficult to say that a result in one particular case means the result will be the same in another case, where the Defences are different.

[DBC]

All POFA does is to enable the PPC to "pursue" the registered keeper in lieu of the driver. That's all. Nowhere does it overturn hundreds of years of civil law regarding actual loss.

[peanutsallergy]

Well POPLA are saying that, until they see evidence of an actual loss are that PE can produce a proper contract then it's "case dismissed". I imagine that the courts would find the same way. In fact PE are fully aware of this as shown by the PE v Smith case of a couple of years ago. Although PE won the case, all they were awarded was £15 ( two P&D tickets plus the DVLA fee) and not the hundreds of pounds they were claiming. In other words they were only awarded the true loss and not some imaginary figure dreamd up by PE. Nothing has changed to contract law since then.

 

They were awarded costs of £95 as well.

 

Not a great win in the grand scheme of things, but paying out £110 and taking an unpaid day off work to defend yourself in court wouldn't be my best day out, even if it was a moral victory.

[DBC]

There again they originally claimed over £4000 in costs because PE had sent along four solicitors from Pannone . Even with those four legal eagles the judge still only awarded PE the amount that represented the true loss and not the imaginary figure dreamed up by PE.

[peanutsallergy]

There again they originally claimed over £4000 in costs because PE had sent along four solicitors from Pannone . Even with those four legal eagles the judge still only awarded PE the amount that represented the true loss and not the imaginary figure dreamed up by PE.

 

True, losing £4000 would have hurt a lot more than the £110.

[DBC]

Why do you think that PE still think that they can claim amounts of money that does not reflect the true loss after that finding by the judge. Even the BPA states that the money claimed must represent a true "pre-estimate of loss". And several POPLA appeals have stated the same.

[peanutsallergy]

Why do you think that PE still think that they can claim amounts of money that does not reflect the true loss after that finding by the judge. Even the BPA states that the money claimed must represent a true "pre-estimate of loss". And several POPLA appeals have stated the same.

 

Why do I think PE think it?

 

Because they put it on every claim they make.

 

If you mean do I think they actually can claim it, the fact is they do claim it.

 

It's down to the defendant to refute the claim.

 

If no defence is offered, PE win by default, so yes, it'll be awarded.

 

If a defence is offered, the amount must be addressed as part of the defence, and why it shouldn't be awarded.

If the defence is adequate, the judge will rule in favour of the defendant.

If it isn't adequate, the judge won't add to it, he'll rule based on the facts presented on the day.

And if PE are more convincing, they'll be awarded the amount they ask for.

As they have been occasionally.

It's down to us to make sure it is as few times as possible, and they don't manage to repeat it.

[Conniff]

This is your Defence

 

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES VS MS HETHERINGTON-JAKEMAN

 

Excel had used a fixed camera to record her number plate as she entered and left the site. It then passed the details to the DVLA, which sent back an email with her name and address.

Ms Hetherington-Jakeman’s solicitor Mr Lee told Mansfield County Court that the levy of £100 per offence was an "unlawful penalty clause" intended to "frighten or intimidate" and therefore unenforceable.

 

This argument was accepted by District Judge Wall, who ruled that the fines did not have to be paid.

After the ruling Ms Hetherington-Jakeman said "Excel's behaviour has been absolutely disgraceful throughout. When I tried to contact them and the only way to do that was on a 50p-a-minute premium-rate phone line? I got no response. They said they couldn't discuss the matter.

 

Her solicitor Martin Lee, said: "In future, companies that charge these sorts of sums will have them struck out unless they can prove that they are a proper account of any financial loss.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Conniff

[DBC]

Yet another POPLA decision that decided that the PPC (Vinci) where claiming for much more mony than they were entitled to:-

The Appellant submits that he paid for and displayed a valid ticket.

 

Amongst other grounds of appeal, the Appellant submitted that the parking charge must be genuine pre-estimate of loss so as to compensate the landholder for any likely loss suffered as a result of a breach to the parking contract. The Appellant submits that there was no loss as a result of the alleged breach and therefore the parking charge cannot be a genuine pre-estimate.

 

The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a PCN would be issued for “failure to adhere” with the parking conditions. The wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

 

The Operator failed to respond to this issue.

 

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

 

I must allow the appeal on this ground.

 

Accordingly. It does not fail for me to decide any remaining issues.

[Scouse Magic]

Does anyone know of any PE car parks in Margate ! Im game to go to court against them

[peanutsallergy]

Does anyone know of any PE car parks in Margate ! Im game to go to court against them

 

They frequent Aldi, google puts one of those in the town centre.

[Scouse Magic]

They frequent Aldi, google puts one of those in the town centre.

 

Hi thanks for that, I've been there a few times and cant get a pcn for love nor money!

 

Even tried the parent and child section.