POPLA Decisions

Have I missed something here?


XXXX (Appellant)

-v-

Combined Parking Solutions (Operator)

The Operator issued parking chargenotice number XXX arising out of the presence at The Sun Centre, XXX , on 27 November 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX.

The material events occurred before the coming into force of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it is clear that, subject to the terms of the contract between them and the landowner, an operator may issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle for a breach of conditions of parking.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

POPLA have made decisions on pre-POFA cases before.

I did notice that Shona had got her 'breaches' mixed up with her 'contracts' again!

No the bit I didn't get was the dates, but I guess that was down to the dubious punctuation that made me think the incident was in November, not the letter.

On the actual case, how come Shona accepted the £100 as a pre-estimate of actual costs?? Because it pre-dated POFA2012?

The Appellant’s reasons on the appeal form appear to end mid sentence, ending “so there is no charge applicable. However, for t…” I will only be able to consider the submissions before me.

***
This happened to me as the submission to POPLA web site is character limited! I had to forward on my appeal in full via e-mail. POPLA should be aware of this and I'd say it makes the whole decision unfair, null and void.
***

The Appellant submits that as the British Parking Association has stated that parking charge notices do not attract Value Added Tax, parking charges cannot be a contractual matter. I am unable to decide whether or not the payment should attract Value Added Tax, as this is a matter for HMRC.

***
Missed the whole point. A contract should attract VAT in these circumstances as the PCC will be liable to pay VAT. Then again that would make it look like an invoice rather than a parking ticket.
***

However, I am able to consider whether or not, on the evidence before me, this appears to be a contractual agreement.

Operators are required to give a reasonable period to allow motorists to read the terms and conditions, and decide whether to agree to them or to leave the site. Operators should also allow a reasonable period to allow motorists to comply with the terms and conditions, for example to obtain and display a permit or pay and display ticket. However, I must find that operators are not obliged to allow extra time for motorists to complete any other tasks. In this case, I must find that once the Appellant had read and understood the terms and conditions, she should have left the site. By remaining at the site after reading the restrictions, she indicated her acceptance of the conditions and the Operator was not obliged to offer a reasonable period for the Appellant to go and inform a friend that she was leaving.

***
Is that what the code states? I doubt it. What happens if someone sees a sign then gets caught behind someone trying to park or has a collision in the car park?
***

The Appellant also states that the amount of the charge should represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, indicating that she does not believe that £100 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator submits that the amount of the parking charge is a core term of the parking contract and therefore falls outside The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

***
Complete bollox. A contract regardless on how it's assumed to be agreed needs to be fair. Someone can not just think up a number and raise an invoice. That's called a con?
***

The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach, either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach, and would need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was proportionate, and amounted to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge is a contractual term.

***
Not under English law sunshine. I hope that they saw the contract stating that they were entitled to charge £100 per event as it stated above.
***
The Appellant further submits that the Operator does not have a contract with the landowner to give them sufficient interest to issue parking charge notices or enter into contracts with motorists. The Operator also submits that they have written authority from the landowner to issue and pursue parking charge notices.

***
Evidenced with the actual contract rather than hearsay I hope.
***
The case of Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012]UKUT 129 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) concerned Value Added Tax but, In Paragraph 46 of the Decision, it states:

VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action.

This case has now been considered by theCourt of Appeal ([2013] EWCA Civ 186) where, in allowing the appeal ofVCS, the Court held:

In the present case the contract betweenVCS and the landowner gives VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle,VCS imposes a parking charge I see no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

The material events occurred before the coming into force of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it is clear that, subject to the terms of the contract between them and the landowner, an operator may issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle for a breach of conditions of parking.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner) to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The Operator has produced a copy of the written agreement they have with the landowner that appears to show that the Operator has the right to patrol and issue parking charge notices at The Sun Centre in accordance with the displayed signage.

Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices in accordance with the displayed terms and conditions.

The terms and conditions stated that parking was for customers of The Sun Centre only. The Appellant parked her vehicle at the site but was not a customer. This was a breach of the terms and conditions. By parking and leaving her vehicle at the site, the Appellant agreed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site, and therefore agreed to pay the parking charge if she did not comply with the restrictions.

***
Under English law a charge under a contract still has to be reasonable and fair. By mistake, parking on private property for a short period of time is worth £100?
I'd like to see that one argued in Court
***

Custard_Pie wrote: »

parking on private property for a short period of time is worth £100?
I'd like to see that one argued in Court
***

Try parking in car parks in Belgravia....it's not far off that.

It's got nothing to do with 'worth'.....are UGG boots 'worth' £170???