What right do PPCs have to charge?

Usually the owner of the car park enters into an agreement with the PPC whereby the PPC is permitted to administer the car park. The PPC then puts up notices in the car park which create a type of contractual offer. So long as the notices are properly visible and legible, you are deemed to accept the offer when you drive in and park and a contract is formed. Under the contract you will typically be allowed to park for a certain period of time subject to conditions imposed by the PPC, which normally include charges.

It is important to understand that the PPC’s right to charge is a private law right. It is essentially the same as the right your mobile phone operator has to bill you. Charges levied by PPCs are not the same as penalties imposed by the police or a local authority, though unscrupulous PPCs would like you to think different. The police and local authorities have much greater powers of enforcement.

More and more people are now being encouraged to settle their dispute before court or other proceedings are contemplated.

Mediation is an alternative way of resolving disputes which allows the people involved in the conflict to work together to find a solution that they can all live with and may be cost effective. 

Mediation can be less stressful, less time consuming, and quicker.

Mediation is a way of turning conflict into something positive.

Here at Levins we aim to help people find their own solutions through mediation to the problems they are experiencing and to take control of their own future with the assistance of our trained mediators.

We are able to offer rooms in both Huyton, Knowsley, and Liverpool, Merseyside and are also able to come to you or arrange a neutral venue convenient to all. 

We can accommodate all types of mediation such as multi party mediations, to mediation involving one or two people at a time.

We can help you in providing:-

• A flexible process tailored to suit your individual needs
• Fixed fees
• Assistance in preparing a record of your settlement

If you are interested in trying mediation or for further information on Mediation please contact info@levinslaw.co.uk or call to speak with one of our mediators on 0151 480 5777

Jon Heath comments: we are delighted for the Claimant. Her success against a Defendant of Ryanair’s resources, despite not having the benefit of public funding or assistance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is proof that individuals can triumph against large corporations even in difficult cases.  We are also pleased that by awarding our client her costs (which is unusual in a small claim), the court has sent out a strong message to Defendants who pursue hopeless appeals. The Claimant outside court with her husband and Jon Heath

Appointments are still available for Will Aid throughout the month of November. Call us now on 0151 480 5777 to make a will during Will Aid month. We will be offering the opportunity to have a will professionally drawn up and we will not be earning a penny!

To raise as much money as possible for Will Aid, we will draw up basic wills without charge, in the hope that the will-maker will make a donation to the Will Aid charities. The suggested donation level is £85 for a single will, £125 for a pair of wills or £40 for a codicil to an existing will. Will Aid is a campaign run by nine of the UK’s best known charities: ActionAid, Age UK, British Red Cross, Christian Aid, NSPCC, Save the Children, Sightsavers, SCIAF (Scotland) and Trocaire (N. Ireland).

Making a will is one of the most thoughtful and important things we can do to protect those we love. Yet it is surprising that fewer than half of people have made one. Most say they simply haven’t got around to it and yet it can take years to sort out someone’s estate if they die without a will, leaving their nearest and dearest in great distress.

Will Aid has raised more £9 million in donations and very much more in legacies since its launch in 1988. The last campaign in 2010 raised over £1.5 million in donations. The money raised is shared by the Will Aid charities and is used to transform the lives of people in the UK and around the world.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1182 will come as a relief to amateur sports clubs everywhere. The Claimant was in the process of scoring a try for his rugby club when he suffered a serious injury to his knee. The injury was caused by a boundary marker left embedded in the touch down area by the cricket club who had used the ground a few days previously. The club’s coaches had walked over the pitch prior to the game to look for hazards, but the marker had not been spotted as it was below the level of the grass. At trial the rugby club was held liable on the basis that the club should have conducted a more careful pitch inspection and, had they done so, the marker would have been seen and removed. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, and Longmore LJ commented that “It is important that neither the game’s professional organisation nor the law should lay down standards that are too difficult for ordinary coaches and match organisers to meet …  I would therefore conclude that, before a game or training session, a pitch should be walked over at a reasonable walking pace by a coach or match organiser (or someone on their behalf) and that, if that is done, that will satisfy a Club’s common law duty of care in relation to such inspection.”

Jon Heath comments: this common-sense decision is another rebuke to those who like to scaremonger about unending liability and the phantom “compensation culture”. An occupier’s duty under the 1957 Act is simply to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor to the premises is reasonably safe. For rugby and other outdoor sports, a walked inspection of the playing area will  normally suffice.

In CF Capital plc v Catherine Willoughby [2011] EWCA Civ 1115, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether a letter sent to the employee which in isolation constituted unambiguous notice of the termination of her employment could be construed differently due to the surrounding circumstances.

The employer was making redundancies but discussed an alternative with Ms Willoughby, namely that she could continue to work for them on a self-employed basis. Ms Willoughby expressed an interest in this, but the employer thought that matters had progressed further and sent a letter to her giving notice of the termination of her employment and enclosing a copy of the proposed agency agreement. After taking legal advice, Ms Willoughby told the employer that she considered herself to have been dismissed. She immediately ceased working for the employer. The employer, realising their mistake, tried to make clear that it had not been their intention to dismiss Ms Willoughby.

The employment tribunal found that although the language of the letter was unambiguous there were two special circumstances which meant that Ms Willoughby had not been dismissed: firstly, in light of the preceding conversation, a reasonable person in Ms Willoughby’s position should have realised that the letter was a mistake; secondly, the dismissal was withdrawn by the employer as soon as they were alerted to their mistake.

The Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, held that Ms Willoughby was entitled to take the employer’s words at face value and hence that she had been dismissed. That dismissal could only be withdrawn with the consent of both parties. The ‘special circumstances’ exception should be narrowly confined, mainly to those cases where words are spoken in the heat of the moment and the speaker is not permitted a reasonable chance to recant.

Jon Heath comments: it is hard not to feel some sympathy with the employer in this case, given that the dismissal appears to have been a genuine error on their part. But hard cases make bad law, and it is reassuring to see a central principle of contract law upheld: contracting parties must usually be taken to have meant what they said.

The Ogden Tables are used in high value personal injury claims to calculate certain elements of the claimant’s loss. For example, if you are so badly injured that you are unlikely to work again, the Ogden Tables are used to estimate a lump sum equivalent to your ongoing loss of earnings. The good news for claimants is that the tables have been altered to take account of increasing life expectancy, which in turn means that damages for future losses are set to rise.

Mrs Quigley argued that the disputed Court of Protection proceedings amounted to a course of conduct which was sufficient to sever the joint tenancy. The difficulty with this argument is that Mrs Quigley did not have the right to act on her father’s behalf until her appointment, and therefore her conduct prior to that date was irrelevant. However, Section 36(2) came to Mrs Quigley’s rescue: the Court of Appeal found that documents which Mrs Masterson had filed and served in the proceedings, in which she clearly indicated her belief that she and Mr Pilkington each owned a 50% share in the property,  constituted written notice of severance and consequently that the joint tenancy was severed prior to Mr Pilkington’s death.

Jon Heath comments: an interesting read for lawyers, but from a practical perspective a great deal of stress and expense could have been saved if Mr Pilkington’s solicitors had served an effective written notice of severance. Most people who own property with a partner do so as joint tenants in equity, which means that your partner inherits the whole of the property if you die before them. That arrangement is fine for many, but if you’ve been involved in a relationship breakdown you may wish for your share to go to someone else in the event of your death. Contact us for further advice.