We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
POPLA - another (flawed) decision
Aaron_Aadvark
Posts: 238 Forumite
From Pepipoo, see here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74489
"=========================================================
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 41390 arising out of the presence at Baltic Quay, on 4 November 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark [XX YY XXX]
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused .
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £85 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 23.04 on 4 November 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because the Operator’s employee could not see a valid permit on display in the vehicle with registration mark [XX YY XXX]. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle, one of which shows the parking charge notice on the windscreen.
The Operator’s case is that it is a requirement for parking at the site that permits are clearly displayed on the windscreen at all times. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that a parking charge notice will be issued.
The Appellant made representations, stating that at the time the parking charge notice was issued his vehicle had broken down and he was using a hire vehicle which had no permit in it. The Appellant also states that he does not have a contract with the Operator as he was parked in his own bay and his lease does not require him to display a permit or consent to any signs. In addition, the Operator states that the amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss caused to the Operator.
The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection they sent, because no valid permit was displayed. The Operator produced photographs taken by the employee that appear to show that a permit was not displayed. In addition, the Operator states that they have been granted authority to issue parking charge notices at the site, and produced a contract between the Operator and the managing agent of the site to show this.
The Appellant does not dispute that the signs were clearly displayed. Therefore I must find that by parking the vehicle at the site, regardless of whether the bay was his allocated bay, the Appellant agreed to the contractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. If the Appellant did not agree, he could have parked elsewhere.
The Operator does not respond to the Appellant’s submission that the charge was disproportionate. However, I must find as a fact that a term of the contract was that if the vehicle parked without complying with the conditions of the contract, the Appellant agreed to pay a parking charge of £85. The Operator is seeking to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at Baltic Quay. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.
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.
I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a valid permit was not displayed. This was a breach of the terms and conditions. The Appellant agreed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site by parking his hire vehicle at the site, and therefore agreed to pay the parking charge if he did not comply with the restrictions.
Accordingly, the appeal must be refused.
================================="
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74489
"=========================================================
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 41390 arising out of the presence at Baltic Quay, on 4 November 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark [XX YY XXX]
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused .
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £85 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 23.04 on 4 November 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because the Operator’s employee could not see a valid permit on display in the vehicle with registration mark [XX YY XXX]. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle, one of which shows the parking charge notice on the windscreen.
The Operator’s case is that it is a requirement for parking at the site that permits are clearly displayed on the windscreen at all times. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that a parking charge notice will be issued.
The Appellant made representations, stating that at the time the parking charge notice was issued his vehicle had broken down and he was using a hire vehicle which had no permit in it. The Appellant also states that he does not have a contract with the Operator as he was parked in his own bay and his lease does not require him to display a permit or consent to any signs. In addition, the Operator states that the amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss caused to the Operator.
The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection they sent, because no valid permit was displayed. The Operator produced photographs taken by the employee that appear to show that a permit was not displayed. In addition, the Operator states that they have been granted authority to issue parking charge notices at the site, and produced a contract between the Operator and the managing agent of the site to show this.
The Appellant does not dispute that the signs were clearly displayed. Therefore I must find that by parking the vehicle at the site, regardless of whether the bay was his allocated bay, the Appellant agreed to the contractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. If the Appellant did not agree, he could have parked elsewhere.
The Operator does not respond to the Appellant’s submission that the charge was disproportionate. However, I must find as a fact that a term of the contract was that if the vehicle parked without complying with the conditions of the contract, the Appellant agreed to pay a parking charge of £85. The Operator is seeking to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at Baltic Quay. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.
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.
I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a valid permit was not displayed. This was a breach of the terms and conditions. The Appellant agreed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site by parking his hire vehicle at the site, and therefore agreed to pay the parking charge if he did not comply with the restrictions.
Accordingly, the appeal must be refused.
================================="
Je suis Charlie
0
Comments
-
Appellant does not appear to have appealed on ground that PPC had any landowner rights or contract that permitted such charges.0
-
I must find that by parking the vehicle at the site, regardless of whether the bay was his allocated bay
Bloody hell, so if its your parking bay it doesn't matter!When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
Thaat rides coach and horses through their claim of the law being paramount, total farce. Apart from the obvious ignore, there is no form of appeal against a popla decision is there?I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
This isn't Shona again is it?
Its a damned shame that it would cost well north of £10K to take this to judicial review. Contractual breach in one breath then not one in the next besides completely ignoring the fact that the guy owned the space!My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com0 -
Yes being a landowner/leaseholder is besides the point in popla land, it's utterly absurd, and has no legal merit at all.When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
-
Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »Yes, it's Shona.
Makes me wonder if Shona is one person?When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
I wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not. On the basis of published "assessments" that the only consistency would appear to be inconsistency might I respectfully suggest that we could safely now coin the phrase: To be "Watsoned"?Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »Yes, it's Shona.My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com0 -
Wonder where POPLA park ?
If a contract stuck on a wall overrides a lease and occupation rights, then perhaps we should print some, stick them up in their car park and ticket them several times a day and see if they agree then that a ppc can just roll up and ticket you on your own leased land.
Personally the OP should sue the ppc and those they act for for harassment, they have a very good case.Be happy...;)0 -
Sorry, missed the point about the operator having a contract that allows parking charges. Appellant should have asked for a copy of this prior to POPLA to check it out.
It must have had a loophole as no PPC is clever enough to draw one up without one!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178K Life & Family
- 260.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards