George Hannah
Well-Known Member
the still, small, voice of reason will never be silenced by pettifoggery
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Parking Charge Notice advice
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 3,425
Like someone said previously ignoring it won't work anymore. They do however have to prove that the shopping centre lost money by your wife parking like she did. So the question is did she stop another car parking in the bays to left/right/rear? Looking at the pictures it looks like like she couldn't so I'd lead with this information.
Again check the money saving expert website for templates, examples and advice
Again check the money saving expert website for templates, examples and advice
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 30,794
You'll have to move mine first.I think I'll go and stick my caravan on Urmstons drive and save a few hundred quid a year on storage fees !
Barcon
Well-Known Member
I think I'll go and stick my caravan on Urmstons drive and save a few hundred quid a year on storage fees !
He'll just ride his bicycle around it.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That's not the case anymore. The Beavis case established that the parking companies were entitled to levy a charge to manage the parking area. The issue of loss to the landowner was not relevant.Like someone said previously ignoring it won't work anymore. They do however have to prove that the shopping centre lost money by your wife parking like she did. So the question is did she stop another car parking in the bays to left/right/rear? Looking at the pictures it looks like like she couldn't so I'd lead with this information.
Again check the money saving expert website for templates, examples and advice
BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 3,425
That's not the case anymore. The Beavis case established that the parking companies were entitled to levy a charge to manage the parking area. The issue of loss to the landowner was not relevant.
The Beavis case was about overstaying not about loss of revenue. Different circumstances
Skip Donoghue
Well-Known Member
Try this it was posted on here by another poster and I saved it just in case and the poster said it was the letter he had used for Stockport I presume peel centre and it worked.....said poster will know who he/she is when they see this and then can hopefully advise further
Dear {name of IPC member, only IPC members for this version!!!}
Re PCN number:
I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge (not a statutory penalty) issued under a purported contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:
1. Who is the party that contracted with your company for the provision of their services? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority to both issue parking charges and litigate in your own name.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that purportedly were on site which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion.
If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.
In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.
Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to those, so to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your alleged loss. In any case, the addition of any debt collector 'costs' is not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.
Yours faithfully
Dear {name of IPC member, only IPC members for this version!!!}
Re PCN number:
I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge (not a statutory penalty) issued under a purported contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:
1. Who is the party that contracted with your company for the provision of their services? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority to both issue parking charges and litigate in your own name.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that purportedly were on site which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion.
If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.
In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.
Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to those, so to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your alleged loss. In any case, the addition of any debt collector 'costs' is not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.
Yours faithfully
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The ticket was issued for overstaying but Beavis appealed on the grounds that the charge levied was excessive, and didn't relate to the loss suffered by the landowner (known as "genuine pre-estimate of loss". The barrister for Parking Eye knew that this line of argument would almost certainly lead to the case being dismissed under established case law so used the concept of commercial justification.The Beavis case was about overstaying not about loss of revenue. Different circumstances
This claimed that punitive charges were justified to deter offences against the car park restrictions. Hitherto the concept of penal charges had always been rejected by courts but this introduced a new line of argument. The argument was that the parking company were entitled to recompense for ensuring efficient use of the car park for their client.
Rather surprisingly a majority of the judges accepted this, saying that the charges were not unreasonable, despite the fact that a council or police penalty for a similar offence would be half of what was being claimed.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Or if the sum claimed is 'unconscionable'.shakes head and walks away......try not to get them, certainly not on purpose. If you are unfortunate enough to get one check the signs, number of them what they say and the terminology they use, herein is about the only way to win appeals anymore.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised that you were surprised.The ticket was issued for overstaying but Beavis appealed on the grounds that the charge levied was excessive, and didn't relate to the loss suffered by the landowner (known as "genuine pre-estimate of loss". The barrister for Parking Eye knew that this line of argument would almost certainly lead to the case being dismissed under established case law so used the concept of commercial justification.
This claimed that punitive charges were justified to deter offences against the car park restrictions. Hitherto the concept of penal charges had always been rejected by courts but this introduced a new line of argument. The argument was that the parking company were entitled to recompense for ensuring efficient use of the car park for their client.
Rather surprisingly a majority of the judges accepted this, saying that the charges were not unreasonable, despite the fact that a council or police penalty for a similar offence would be half of what was being claimed.