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
    • GSHopper
    • By GSHopper 20th Aug 17, 10:40 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 1Thanks
    GSHopper
    Britannia PCN Appeal
    • #1
    • 20th Aug 17, 10:40 PM
    Britannia PCN Appeal 20th Aug 17 at 10:40 PM
    Sadly I did not read the Newbies Thread before sending in my appeal to Britannia - they have rejected it and know that I was the driver. Am I sunk?
Page 2
    • waamo
    • By waamo 9th Oct 17, 3:27 PM
    • 2,063 Posts
    • 2,475 Thanks
    waamo
    Can you post up the assessors reasoning please?
    This space for hire.
    • GSHopper
    • By GSHopper 10th Oct 17, 4:54 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GSHopper
    https://www.popla.co.uk/popla-track-appeal#/TrackAppeal/Index
    • GSHopper
    • By GSHopper 10th Oct 17, 5:02 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GSHopper
    Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Gemma West
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a valid pay and display ticket.
    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant states the photographs provided by the operator do not show the vehicle registration number. • She explains her daughter was attending to her unwell baby and was breast-feeding. • The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • She says the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is the driver. • The appellant has questioned landowner authority. • She explains the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Further, there is insufficient notice of the parking charge amount.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “A £85 Parking Charge Notice will be issued to vehicles which: Fail to display a valid ticket , voucher or permit”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to display a valid pay and display ticket. The appellant states the photographs provided by the operator do not show the vehicle registration number. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle. On review of the evidence provided, it shows the appellant displayed an expired pay and display ticket. Furthermore, the evidence provided clearly shows the appellant’s vehicle registration. She explains her daughter was attending to her unwell baby and was breast-feeding. I appreciate these comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents circumstances setting out reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012. I feel it is appropriate to state that when submitting an appeal to the operator the appellant has identified herself as the driver of the vehicle. As such, the provisions of PoFA 2012 will not be considered in this appeal. She says the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is the driver. The operator has issued a Notice to Keeper to the appellant, who has appealed confirming she was the driver of the vehicle. As such I am satisfied the operator is pursuing the driver of the vehicle. The appellant has questioned landowner authority. The operator has provided a landowner agreement, I am satisfied this shows the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue a PCN on the land. I note the appellant’s comments regarding the redacted copy of the agreement; however the operator is not obliged to provide a full contract due to it containing commercially sensitive information. Furthermore, the statement provided states the contract is ongoing, and without any evidence that the contract is cancelled, I am satisfied it is valid. She explains the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Further, there is insufficient notice of the parking charge amount. As the appellant has questioned the signage at the location at the time of the parking event, I must consider whether this meets the minimum requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The BPA Code of Practice under, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Furthermore, section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the car park in question. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Ultimately, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. In addition, the appellant has purchased a pay and display ticket, therefore it is fair to assume the appellant was aware a pay and display ticket was required when parking on site. Furthermore, the legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant has failed to display a valid pay and display ticket and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.
    Print
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 10th Oct 17, 5:11 PM
    • 6,170 Posts
    • 7,890 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Is this finally POPLA going completely of their rockers
    with this assessor.

    the appellant failed to display a valid pay and display ticket

    Beavis did not do that so why the waffle all about the Beavis case?
    The Beavis case was all about unfair charges, not displaying
    a ticket ???

    This particular assessor should be re trained and her homework
    must be
    "Read the Beavis case 100 times until you understand"

    OMG, with assessors like this, no wonder the country
    in is such a state.

    You should now complain to POPLA

    Did this assessor work for the IPC/IAS before ???
    Last edited by beamerguy; 10-10-2017 at 5:24 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • GSHopper
    • By GSHopper 13th Oct 17, 1:57 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GSHopper
    I don't think I can challenge POPLA's decision. Should I pay the charge or just ignore it?
Welcome to our new Forum!

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

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,861Posts Today

6,003Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin