POFA: What is a Parking Charge?

The_Slithy_Tove

Back to the good old Protection of Freedoms Act.

It seems that our friends, the Private Ticketing Companies, like to dish out their spurious charges for activities which are not necessarily "parking". The POFA will make the registered keeper of a vehicle liable if the driver is not identified. But this is specifically in terms of "parking charges". So, what is a "parking charge"? Lets look at Schedule 4 of the POFA to attempt to find out.

In 2 (1), it says

“parking charge”—
(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, and
(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,
however the sum in question is described;

...

“relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—
(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or
(b) authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

...


“relevant obligation” means—
(a) an obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract; or
(b) an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land;

Picking all that apart with all its circular references, it seems any contract and obligation are only in place if a vehicle is actually parked. This would surely make all attempts to ticket for activities such as drop-off, pick-up, load and unload, turn round, drive through outside the scope of POFA (whether or not they were in the terms of the alleged contract, as it's not "parking"), and thus RK liability does not apply.

Would that mean, then, that attempts to threaten the registered keeper with liability for these non-parking activities would be misleadig at best, unlawful at worst? I am thinking particularly of airports where private ticketing companies have been brought in to try to force people to pay to park, even for quick activities like dropping people off? These people try to say their invoices are Parking Charge Notices, yet they don't seem to fall into the definition of "parking charges" as set out in the POFA (quite apart from the fact that you cannot possibly read and accept the Ts&Cs of the "contract" as you drive past the cluttered and closely typed sign on your way into the airport).

HO87

In simple terms, yes. However, it would mean that invoices raised for these sort of reasons would just fall outside of the ambit of POFA. I'd doubt for less than a nanosecond that it would mean that incidents like this would be ignored. It would be useful to be able to catch invoicers out attempting to use a POFA procedure in trying to enforce in circumstances like this. With this in mind one wonders quite how companies like APCOA particularly who enforce against breaches caused by moving traffic at Luton Airport will be able to continue.

esmerobbo

No doubt the BPA used the argument that if you could not enforce payment for parking then anyone could simply park and not pay.
I think their argument was aimed at protecting pay and display car parks. As such the charges recoverable would be the actual charge incurred and any cost in admin.
I doubt that the BPA pressed too much on the enforcement of charges for breaching car park conditions.