POPLA Decisions

bazster

Computersaysno wrote: »

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???

Indeed. I see nothing wrong with people putting up signs saying (CLEARLY!) that parking costs £100 per hour, payable by some realistic method. 'Tis a free market, good luck to them. Don't think they'll get many takers, but that's their problem.

The law doesn't say prices have to be reasonable, and nor does it attempt to define "worth". Prices and worth are not the law's business, they are a matter between buyer and seller. What the law says is that terms have to be reasonable and fair, and you can easily see how it could be argued that a term which states that you must pay £100 for a one-minute overstay, or for parking with a wheel 1mm onto a white line, is unfair and punitive.

Computersaysno

I agree......I just wanted to make the point that 'worth' is meaningless in this context.

Orrin

bazster wrote: »

The law doesn't say prices have to be reasonable, and nor does it attempt to define "worth". Prices and worth are not the law's business, they are a matter between buyer and seller. What the law says is that terms have to be reasonable and fair, and you can easily see how it could be argued that a term which states that you must pay £100 for a one-minute overstay, or for parking with a wheel 1mm onto a white line, is unfair and punitive.

Core terms in plain language are not subject to the fairness test. Depending on the signage the examples you cite could very well be considered core terms of the parking contract.

Parking-Prankster

Not strictly a POPLA verdict, but I think it instructive so I will post here anyway.

CP Plus issued an ANPR NtK after 23 days, which is out of time for keeper liability to apply. After some to-and-froing (documented on my blog) I sent in the following as my full appeal to POPLA

The parking incident was on 16/4/2013 and the notice to keeper was received on 9/5/2013. This is outside the POFA 2012 requirements for service of the notice to keeper (14 days) and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

Today I received an email from POPLA stating that the operator has withdrawn the PCN.

...they were 6 days over the 28 day deadline to file their own evidence anyway.

trisontana

Just in from CAG:-

This morning I have received a response from POPLA advising that they are ALLOWING the appeal in relation to a parking notice issued by CP Plus.

The details are as follows:

Car was parked in a car park where there is free parking for 2 Hours. The car was parked for approx 4 hours and no payment was made.
CP Plus issued a parking chargefor £90 which they stated was "in accordance with the signage".
The letter from POPLA states that the appellants case is as follows
a) She did not see any terms and conditions sign at the site and therefore no contract existed between her and the Operator.
b) Where there was no contract, the Appellant was potentially only liable for damages in trespass. Since no damage was incurred, no damages can be claimed.
c) If, as is denied, a contract did exist, then the full parking charge is disproportionate to any loss incurred as a result of the alleged breach and therefore it does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
d) To satisfy (c) the Operator must justify the parking charge.
e) The Operator has failed to clarify on what basis it is pursuing a liability (ie: trespass, breach of contract or sum due under contract) and therefore failed to demonstrate its cause of action.

POPLA's decision:

The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a pcn would be issued "if you fail" to comply with the parking conditions. this wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon the loss flowing from a breach of parking terms.
The Operator acknowledged this part of the Appellant's submissions but only submitted that "the appeal was rejected on the grounds that the signs on site apply to all drivers whether or not the car park is full"
This does not address the issue as to whether or not the parking charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Consequently, I have no evidence before to to refute the Appellant's submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.

Guys_Dad

In my opinion, the preceding 2 posts in their own way are landmark cases and should be used as reference by regulars who are aiding motorists with their appeals.

In particular, the Prankster's wording for out of time attempts to pursue charges is very important, reinforcing the reasons why one should always make the soft appeal as "the keeper" and not "the driver".

Stroma

I agree on the above, never admit anything and always refer to anyone as the third person.

trisontana

Yet another loss for Parking Eye and the old "pre-estimate of loss" elephant in the room for the parking companies (from PPP):-

I appealed on various grounds.
The point that the parking charge was not reasonable in terms of the loss incurred by the landowner is what POPLA focused on.

The Parking company claimed that it's charges are in line with the BPA code of practice. The BPA states that operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100; it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is for the operator to address it.
The Parking company did not . They submitted that its charges have been held to be enforceable in previous cases but did not provide any evidence.
POPLA ruled that each car park would have different losses and each one would need to be calculated separately.

In summary, the Operator failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Here is the PDF document:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=22725

bazster

:T Nice one!

The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a preestimate of the loss caused in every car park.

No s**t Sherlock!

trisontana

Of course this is all down to the BPA and their stupid £100 suggestion. The only reason they chose that figure was that it matched that asked for by councils. One thing they forgot is that the council figure is nothing to do with loss, it's a figure laid down in the statutory parking order. On the other hand a private parking ticket is all to do with loss. It's like trying to compare apples to oranges.