PPS PCN - Great Weatern Hotel Swindon - ticket incorrectly displayed

[corsairrunner]

Going to have a proper mull through this later, as I said I had 15 minutes to knock it out and the content has likely suffered as a result. I'll be sure to clean it up before sending.

 

In relation to sticking to the points of law, unfortunately I'm not well versed in civil law so I'm kind of winging it from the small amount of reading I've done.

 

I'll have a proper read through the content this evening and update accordingly.

[ericsbrother]

Keep it simple so change the wording that syas "massage" of figures and dont say farcial use words like unrealistic instead. You dont want to come across a a green biro nutter so stick to the exact point and any subjective thought to a minimum.

The points of law are really things like

The PPC has failed to show that it has the assigned rights to make claims in its own name and has refused to provide sight of any contract that may give them those rights.

The ticket was purchased and displaid so no actual loss has been caused as the prescribed fee was paid. This fee determines the maximum possible loss caused by a breach of the conditions.

The Estimate of loss does not reflect the loss caused by the breach but are in reality attributed to the costs of defending their claims at an appeal and as this represents on 2% of all claims then it cannot said to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss but is an adminstrative burden that is taken up due to the requirements of legislation and as such not part of the losses caused by an incorrectly displayed ticket.

[corsairrunner]

Hi guys,

 

Appeal is due to be reviewed today, just to give you a further update, I submitted the following further evidence on Friday:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i7eh69rtkvgi9dr/Ref%20appeal%206860195039.pdf?dl=0

 

PPS replied with:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/owxkb33mv1ch616/REPLY%20TO%20FURTHER%20EVIDENCE%20TO%20POPLA%20APPEAL%206860195039.pdf?dl=0

 

Doesn't seem to me like they've actually answered any of my appeal points, they've just repeated their case summary which in my mind isn't adequate. Fingers crossed we get a good result today.

[corsairrunner]

Hi guys,

 

Feels funny coming back to this thread 12 months later from the point of initially posting it. My case was adjourned due to the ParkingEye Limited vs Beavis case as the majority of my appeal was based around GPEOL. Today POPLA have emailed and asked me if I wish to submit any further evidence within the next 7 days before the case is heard. Is there any further evidence I should look at submitting based off of new information in relation to the above case? Or shall I just let it go to appeal with my current appeal as is?

 

Cheers

 

Luke

[ericsbrother]

Wright Hassal are in the pocket of the parking companies so it wont make much difference but if you can get to the site you can photograph the signage and we can offer an opinion on whether it forms a contract or not. Again, there has been court cases that have decided what isnt a contractual offer so we have more certainty on that now.

Even if you lose your appeal you dont ahve to pay them, you can make them work for it and there are other arguments not worth making to POPLA that are winners in the long game.

[corsairrunner]

Here's a picture of the main signage in the car park 

 

This was taken a couple of days after the incident.

 

I'm assuming POPLA will throw out the majority of my GPEOL argument but does the fact the ticket was paid for and just not correctly displayed hold and weight?

 

Lets say POPLA dismiss my appeal, what's the best course of action after that?

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ic2v6p3xdnlol0b/20150122_182138.jpg?dl=0

[ericsbrother]

to answer your question about the display of the ticket

- no, POPLA will not find in your favour but a court will as the claim would be "de minimis" as they havent actually lost any money becuase the main reason for the contract is to get you to pay to park, not earn money by nit-picking (the reality is they make more money from the supposed breaches than the parking money and it is all tax free)

 

the signage confuses a contract with a breach of contract.

 

They say the contract is you obey all of those terms.

they dont say that you agree to pay them a different amount to the tariff if you dont and also they use the word "may" rather than "shall" so no obligation on your part

.The sign is an "invitation to treat" and not a contract.

 

Rework this into your appeal and see what they say.

I doubt if they will allow it but the reasons for rejection will be very telling.

[corsairrunner]

I'll do some research and submit that as further evidence, though im not holding my breath!

 

I think this will likely come down to having to let it go to court and hope its thrown out off the back of no real loss.

 

I'll sort the additional evidence and let you know what garbage they come back with.

 

Thanks for your continued support.

 

Wasn't entirely sure how to word the below as the research I did didn't help me a bunch in this scenario.

 

Would the below suffice as additional evidence?:

 

"I only have a brief further piece of evidence to add. I’d like to draw your attention to the wording of the main signage in blue and put forward the fact that firstly it confuses a “contract” with a breach of contract.

 

There is no direct mention of the fact that if I fail to adhere to their terms that I shall agree to pay them an amount different to the parking tariff.

 

The sign states “failure to comply with any of these conditions may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice”.

 

Due to the wording there is no obligation on my part.

 

This sign is simply an invitation to treat and not a contract.

[ericsbrother]

that will do. Wright Hassal work as rentathreats for the parking cowboys so dont expect reason to prevail but it will be interesting to see how they write up their deliberations. The IAS have a habit of inventing new laws and actually ruin their clients' liklihood of success in an actual court claim.

[corsairrunner]

So unsurprisingly the decision didn't go in my favor. To summise:

1. Refused an unreasonable parking charge as £100 is deemed reasonable under BPA guidelines.

2. Signage is deemed appropriate by POPLA so that point is nil.

3. They are in receipt of evidence that the operator has a legal right to manage parking charges at that location.

4. Because my ticket was not correctly displayed I did not display valid information.

 

As for now what is the best course of action? They state I have 28 days to pay the fee of £100.

 

As always your input is much appreciated.

[Oddfellow]

1, 2 & 3: The District Judge sitting at a County Court may take a different view, and it's their opinion that counts!

 

 

All is not lost.

[ericsbrother]

next thing to do is ignore the parking co and POPLA.

 

Did you receive a copy of the contract between the operator and the landlord or just POPLA saying they saw one? generally they dont question these things well and believe any old rubbish put in front of them.

 

That applies to signage as well, dont forget, POPLA is set up and paid for by the parking companies and the system being run by Ombudsman Services Ltd has a very narrow remit as to what they can look at so this isnt the end of the line but really the first step of a longer process.

 

Also, back to the original point, how have the parking co suffered a loss?

[corsairrunner]

Okay all noted, they didn't supply the document in relation to the parking companies right to operate on the land. Their reply was also very vague, they failed to answer my point in relation to the signage wording query also.

 

What is the likely course of action from here? Should I ignore the company will they likely try to take it through civil court? As much as I don't want to give these crooks a penny of my money I'm not sure the hassle of court attendance is worth it, ericsbrother I've sent you a pm also.

 

Apparently you have too many stored messages so it wouldn't send, let me know if you can clear any, cheers!

[dx100uk]

Members should not be giving advice nor asking for advise by pm

 

Please read our rules

[corsairrunner]

Have noted the rules, its a question that doesn't relate to this scenario directly and is of a sensitive nature, it contains information that I would not be happy to have in the public domain, however I'll avoid asking it should you deem this inappropriate

[ericsbrother]

My suggestion is you wait and see what they do. Most likely they will send you a reminder letter and crow about how POPLA says they are right so you must pay up- not true.

 

People who say that they want to avoid court should take the logical step- pay them- but that is not the answer you want, you want to somehow create some sort of telepathic connection between us and the parking co to dissuade them from doing anything. it doesnt work like that,

 

they are allowed to waste their money doing whatever they want and it is only wrong when a judge says so.

 

Up to that point they will hope that you will lose your nerve and cough up so be prepared to be in this for the long run if you really want the matter to be over.

 

You now have the opportunity to do a bit more research that may well dssuade them from taking legal action, like when they write to you next time demand "strict proof" that a contract exists between them and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts and make legal claims in their own name.

 

They wont want to show you that but they need one ohterwise how can they expect to win at court?

 

After you get past that you demand to see the planning permission for their signage.

 

Agsin they will no doubt bluster about private land and deemed consent but that isnt relevant either.

 

again, they wont like t answer that question in a court so the matter will then be quietly dropped.

 

Dont encourage them by demanding these things before they have wasted their time and money chasing you,

 

any sign of keenness will be read as weakness in your resolve.

[corsairrunner]

Hi CAG,

 

I originally posted here almost 5 years ago regarding a PPS PCN I received due to the wind blowing my ticket face down. It went to appeal and I heard nothing of it, at least until now 4 years later!

Essentially a letter was forwarded to me from an old address requesting payment within 5 days of the dated letter (which has now passed) or they will initiate CC activity etc.

I no longer own the vehicle and I've moved addresses twice during the time period that has passed. What is the best course of action here? 

Thanks

[FTMDave]

Was their letter headed "Letter Before Action" or "Letter Before Claim"?  If so it is a credible threat of legal action and needs to be replied to.

 

If instead it's the usual rubbish about how they MAY take you to court and you COULD owe millions of pounds in costs, just ignore the threat.  However, it's a good idea to send them a very short letter with your new address, otherwise they could go for a default CCJ.

 

In any case "fluttering ticket" cases are the easiest to defend legally, if they were stupid enough to take you to court they'd just get a right kicking.

 

 

[corsairrunner]

It actually isn't entitled either. It just relates to requesting payment for the historic ticket. It just has the normal threatening rhetoric regarding county court action. 

[ericsbrother]

so a threatogram. Who from then?

[dx100uk]

threads merged now for complete history.

 

[corsairrunner]

Thanks for merging dx.

To summise, the letter from PPS effectively says they will now start County Court Action as I haven't met their conditions regarding payment. I'll write a brief letter to update them of my new address to avoid the CCJ default as per the advice from FTM Dave. I'm fully prepared to go through the motions with this one.

I'll update should I receive any more correspondence from them.

[ericsbrother]

a simple letter telling them that you deny any debt is due and that they should serve all papers on your current address.

 

If the letter doesnt make it clear that it is a PAP letter before action then tell them that as they have failed to so far follow the civil procedure rules for pre action protocol any claim they make will likely be reduced even if hell has frozen over and they somehow win

[corsairrunner]

All noted - thank you for the advice.

[corsairrunner]

Morning all,

I've received a further letter from PPS & BW Legal today, requesting payment be made by the 2nd of December plus an extra £60 on the grand total for their debt collection fees. From a quick Google it seems that BW are just another bunch of cowboys, lots of questionable reviews online about them.

 

Typical scare mongering letter regarding a PAP and CC proceedings, stating I may be liable for court costs, solicitors costs (in a small claims court???) and liable to a CCJ etc. 

 

The main thing is, they have the correct address for me now which means no default CCJ. I guess I just disregard this and create a new "threatening letters" section in my filing cabinet?

Thanks

CR