POPLA Decisions

Another GPEOL loss for PE (post #24):-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78341&st=20

Another loss for Parking Eye LOL:

Fistral Beach, Newquay. Car parked late at night (in the dark where you can't read any of their signage so wasn't aware of any parking charges etc) back in July this year for 40 mins to watch the waves crashing against the beach (from within the car itself!).

Got PCN first day back after hols. Discovered this website and thanks to all who helped (via photographic evidence of signage etc) both on the site and friends of friends via Facebook, put together appeal.

Appeal arguments were
"The driver is not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked"
Reasons:
1) Insufficient signage (not illuminated at night)
2) No sufficiently clear mention of ANPR usage on signage
3) Disproportionate parking charge doesn't reflect genuine loss

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At XX:XX on XX July 2013, a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX was recorded on Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) entering the Fistral Beach car park, Cornwall. At XX:XX on XX July 2013, the same vehicle was recorded on CCTV exiting the Fistral Beach car park, Cornwall. This car park is a paid parking car park. The appellant does not dispute he did not pay for parking.
It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued
because the terms and conditions for parking in the Fistral Beach car park are
clearly displayed on signs at the entrance to the car park and throughout the
car park. A copy of the terms and conditions has been produced. The signs
state ‘Fistral Beach Car Park: This is a Paid Parking Car Park. Parking tariffs
apply 7 days a week’. The sign also warns ‘Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100’. The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

It is the appellant’s case that the parking charge issued is disproportionate to
the loss caused to the landowner by the appellant’s parking contravention.
The appellant further submits that when he entered the Fistral Beach car park
on the night of XX July 2013, he was unaware of the erected parking signage
because it was dark and the signs were not illuminated by lights.
The operator is seeking to rely on an agreement between itself and the
appellant that the appellant would either pay a tariff for parking in the Fistral
Beach car park, or otherwise face liability for a parking charge. For such a
term to be included in the agreement, it must be ‘incorporated’ into the
agreement. The only relevant method of incorporation, in this case, is by
notice. This means that the appellant must have been made aware of the
term, before the agreement was made, in order for it to be deemed part of
the agreement. The appellant will be deemed to have been made aware of
the term if the operator had taken reasonable steps to bring the term to the
appellant’s attention. The usual method by which an operator takes
‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying clear signs around the site advertising the
terms of parking.

Once an appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed
clearly enough, the onus is then on the operator to demonstrate that the signs
at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.

The operator has produced a number of photographs which show the
parking signage erected at the Fistral Beach car park. These photographs
were taken during the day time. However, there is no dispute between the
parties that it was dark when the appellant entered the car park. The
operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the terms of
parking were clearly displayed at night time.

Consequently, I must find that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it
took reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention on the
appellant.

I need not consider any other issues.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.



Allow me to park a finger in the eye of Parking Eye :P

Thanks again guys and gals for all your help!

Parking Prankster has just posted a blog where he is highlighting the inordinate leangth of time that POPLA is taking in assessing cases. In addition he has listed the many cases that PE have lost because they cannot prove a true estimator of loss.

That adjudicator obviously knows they are going to lose their job in December when the BPA bins the current supplier of POPLA services.

I didn't post for advice on my POPLA appeal but it was based purely on what I have learned as a lurker over the past 5 years! My appeal was based on the usual; no pre-estimate of loss, no contract, invalid notice to driver.

POPLA concentrated on no pre-estimate of loss and ruled;

"In this instance the operator has not provided any evidence to refute the appellant’s submission that the charge does not equal a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is a penalty clause in contract law which makes it unenforceable."

The PPC was Observices / OPC and interestingly they did provide a copy of a document between OPC and the landowner's agents entitled "Agreement for the Supply of Parking Control Services" which did mention that OPC could pursue through the Courts if necessary!