Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 225Posts
    • 390Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 12-09-2014 at 1:55 PM.
Page 119
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 16, 9:22 PM
    • 38,305 Posts
    • 49,776 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great result! POPLA Assessors seem to have had some top-up training on 'being sure the appellant is actually the person liable' but fancy them finding that even though you didn't raise it. Nice.

    I also liked this argument (below) - a great explanation and an example of how to show POPLA that in THIS sort of permit case, where the person is clearly authorised, GPEOL and the penalty rule are certainly still arguable factors even after the Beavis case.

    So we have a template POPLA point for others to use in permit cases (all I have done is anonymise the PPC and remove the word 'deliberate' because I can't say that about Barry B - because it wasn't. Oh and I've changed the UTCCRs to the CRA 2015).

    Hat tip to IanMSpencer, hope this is OK with you:





    The operator makes much of Beavis case. They are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different, essentially that case was the abuse of a free time limited public car park where signage could be used to create a contract.

    In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately, there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple problem of a permit that is agreed to be valid not being entirely visible to the satisfaction of a parking warden.

    Therefore, in this case GPEOL should still apply and any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair.

    In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would agree to a term where parking in a place that they paid a significant rent for the privilege would also accept a further liability in the case of a potentially misplaced permit, I would suggest that a court would not accept that £100 was a reasonable amount (as opposed to a charge for the circumstances where a genuinely unauthorised vehicle was using the same land and could be bound by appropriately signed conditions) and certainly does not in any way reflect the costs incurred in establishing that the car was indeed authorised.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • IanMSpencer
    • By IanMSpencer 22nd Sep 16, 9:26 AM
    • 928 Posts
    • 759 Thanks
    IanMSpencer
    Great result! POPLA Assessors seem to have had some top-up training on 'being sure the appellant is actually the person liable' but fancy them finding that even though you didn't raise it. Nice.

    I also liked this argument (below) - a great explanation and an example of how to show POPLA that in THIS sort of permit case, where the person is clearly authorised, GPEOL and the penalty rule are certainly still arguable factors even after the Beavis case.

    So we have a template POPLA point for others to use in permit cases (all I have done is anonymise the PPC and remove the word 'deliberate' because I can't say that about Barry B - because it wasn't. Oh and I've changed the UTCCRs to the CRA 2015).

    Hat tip to IanMSpencer, hope this is OK with you:


    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I'll take any compliments going thank you.

    This was a rescue involving dumpster surfing after angry text from daughter who was going to write angry letters. No written contract,which in this case I reckon it's an advantage as it established no terms on her.

    I'd be interested on whether you think the signs can't create a contract by performance if you already believe you have the right to park there. You believe you have a contract to park, so why would a reasonable person look at signs or consider that parking in your space constituted an acceptance of the offered contract on a sign?


    My suspicion is that this one might have raised alarm bells and been kicked upstairs to a competent person who wanted to avoid a judgement on those two interesting points, or is that too cynical?
    Last edited by IanMSpencer; 22-09-2016 at 9:30 AM. Reason: Predictive text gobbledegook
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Sep 16, 11:40 AM
    • 38,305 Posts
    • 49,776 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'd be interested on whether you think the signs can't create a contract by performance if you already believe you have the right to park there. You believe you have a contract to park, so why would a reasonable person look at signs or consider that parking in your space constituted an acceptance of the offered contract on a sign?
    Yes I agree, we've used in defences that the person already has a (sometimes paid-for, and often signed) contract allowing them to park, which neither specifies the terms or actually states the £sum of any parking charge, nor advises or in any way draws to the attention of the recipient to any terms on signs which must be taken as also be incorporated into the contract and read before signing/agreeing to the permit scheme.

    Therefore the contract is already concluded and cannot be taken to be a day-to-day one accepted 'anew' by performance each day whereby a driver would be expected to check the signs haven't changed. The signs (arguably) do not form part of the contract if they were not part of it when the permit was accepted, paid for or signed for.

    There may also be other considerations such as what the lease allows in terms of easements and rights, to take into account in a residential flats/houses car park, like in Laura Jopson's case:

    http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

    Worth including as this was an appeal case heard by a Circuit Judge, which is persuasive to lower county court hearings.

    Also as added now by henrik777 whose comments are always spot on:
    Thornton v Shoe lane. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html

    Once a contract is concluded you can't bolt on random crap.
    Originally posted by henrik777
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 24-09-2016 at 10:50 PM.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mmn100
    • By mmn100 24th Sep 16, 9:48 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    mmn100
    POPLA Success Luton Airport APCOA
    APCOA gave up immediately, looks like the NTK not relevant land issue is the killer.

    You can see details under thread "Luton Airport APCOA Dropping Off PCN POPLA Appeal", sorry cannot post a link.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 24th Sep 16, 10:27 PM
    • 35,458 Posts
    • 71,511 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    APCOA gave up immediately, looks like the NTK not relevant land issue is the killer.

    You can see details under thread "Luton Airport APCOA Dropping Off PCN POPLA Appeal", sorry cannot post a link.
    Originally posted by mmn100
    Original thread here.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5526432

    Well done to you.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • henrik777
    • By henrik777 24th Sep 16, 10:42 PM
    • 1,996 Posts
    • 26,280 Thanks
    henrik777
    Yes I agree, we've used in defences that the person already has a (sometimes paid-for, and often signed) contract allowing them to park, which neither specifies the terms or actually states the £sum of any parking charge, nor advises or in any way draws to the attention of the recipient to any terms on signs which must be taken as also be incorporated into the contract and read before signing/agreeing to the permit scheme. Therefore the contract is already concluded and cannot be taken to be a day-to-day one concluded by performance each day.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thornton v Shoe lane. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html

    Once a contract is concluded you can't bolt on random crap.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Sep 16, 10:49 PM
    • 38,305 Posts
    • 49,776 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Once a contract is concluded you can't bolt on random crap.
    Originally posted by henrik777
    I admire the concise way you say things and say it like it is, henrik777!

    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Mr_Stroopwafel
    • By Mr_Stroopwafel 26th Sep 16, 4:44 PM
    • 87 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Mr_Stroopwafel
    Won at POPLA - thanks again for all for the help!


    Original thread here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5495209

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Adele Brophy

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operatorís case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to the vehicle not being authorised to park and a valid permit was not clearly displayed.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellantís case is that the alleged offence did not occur and that the operator has failed to comply with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act (POFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the operator has no evidence that the person the person they are pursuing is liable for the charge and that the operator does not have the landowners authority. The appellant has advised that vehicle was parked with the landlords and tenants permission. The appellant further advises that the signage was inadequate and due to this no contract was entered into by the driver due to this. The appellant lastly advises that the operator has breached both the consumer rights act 2015 the consumer contracts regulations 2013, and no grace period has been allowed.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) must be adhered to. Section 9 (2) advises that the notice must: (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is givenó (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; From the evidence provided, I can see a notice to driver was issued to the vehicle on the day of the parking event. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver of the vehicle. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal; however I have not considered these as I have allowed the appeal.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 28th Sep 16, 9:50 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Molts
    POPLA Success vs F1rst Parking
    POPLA Code 2612466202

    Dear xxxxxxx

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 2612466202.

    First Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team

    ET6116/001
    Thanks to the amazing help on this forum. A very rushed cut/paste and paraphrased appeal to suit the circumstances following a PCN issued in a hospital car park for alleged failure to display a valid residents permit. Threw the kitchen sink at it but the NTK failed in so many areas I cannot imagine a loss even if F1rst Parking bothered to force a proper adjudication.

    After including pretty much all of Coupon Mad's epic text on signage the PPC completely lost the will to live and threw in the towel immediately - I sent the appeal after midnight on Sunday and received the POPLA response by Midday on Monday
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Sep 16, 11:16 PM
    • 38,305 Posts
    • 49,776 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    POPLA Code 2612466202

    After including pretty much all of Coupon Mad's epic text on signage the PPC completely lost the will to live and threw in the towel immediately - I sent the appeal after midnight on Sunday and received the POPLA response by Midday on Monday
    Originally posted by Molts
    Nice to know they lost the will to live, as fully intended...I reckoned we weren't attacking 'woeful signage' enough and now we do.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

730Posts Today

5,660Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @GemmaRobyn: @MartinSLewis my parents earned +£50k but it didn't mean they could afford to help. I worked 2 jobs at uni to get by. Why b?

  • RT @JackieMutlow: @MartinSLewis @GMB Daughters loans not enough we pay 2 months rent a year (2x £410) AND £250 a month for food, train etc?

  • Morning. On way to @gmb for 7:40 slot, this week warning to parents about student finance, get paid to cut debt costs, free cafe nero & more

  • Follow Martin