POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

The operator has provided me with a copy of the agreement. However, I am unable to establish the identity of the client. As such, I cannot conclude that the operator had any authority from the landowner,

LOL - parking firms really are stupid aren't they! :rotfl:

ThornyEng

Parking Eye
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Linsdey Rogers
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant remained at the car park for longer than authorised.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has questioned the validity of the notice to keeper. The appellant states that they do not believe the notice to hirer was issued in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the provisions set out in Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The appellant raises several, further grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has stated that they do not believe the notice to hirer was issued in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice or the provisions set out in PoFA 2012. Schedule 4 paragraph 14 (1) of PoFA 2012 states that: “If – (a) The creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and (b) The conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met, The creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.” It then goes on to state under paragraph 14 (2) that: “The conditions are that – (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper” The documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2), referred to in the above excerpt, are: “(2) … (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement” After reviewing the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can confirm that I have not been provided with a copy of any of the documents listed in paragraph 13(2) by the operator. The appellant has stated that the relevant documentation was not supplied to them alongside the notice to hirer. The notice to hirer supplied to me by the operator does not mention the inclusion of any of the information listed in paragraph 13 (2), as required by paragraph 14 (2) (a). Finally, in its response to POPLA, the operator has not asserted that the required documents were sent to the hirer alongside the notice to hirer. As the operator is issuing a parking charge to the hirer by virtue of PoFA 2012, the burden of proof rests with the operator in showing that the provisions of the Act have been followed in transferring liability from the keeper of the vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle. Upon reviewing the evidence available to me, and in the absence of any evidence suggesting otherwise, I am not satisfied that the operator provided this required information to the appellant alongside the notice to hirer. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I have not considered them.

Ralph-y

well done ....:j

and thanks for posting up the appeal

Ralph:cool:

bod1467

Compliance with the BPA CoP (and here POFA2012) seem to be sure-fire winners at the moment. How long before the CoP is changed to get around these results?

thetogonator

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Emily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the parking time he had paid for.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:25 and exiting the site at 14:37. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs stipulate the parking tariffs applicable to motorists wishing to park their vehicle on site. The signs also state that “parking tariffs apply 7 days a week, to all motorists”. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” After reviewing the evidence of the signage displayed on site provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signs adhere to the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a system print out which shows the appellant paid for one hours parking. The images captured on the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle was on site for a total of one hour and 11 minutes, thus exceeding the parking time he had paid for. The appellant says the parking charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. 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.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, 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. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

Redx

you should have appealed on other points, like the BPA CoP, grace periods , clause #13 , of up to 10 minutes at the beginning and over 10 minutes grace at the end, plus - no locus standii (no contract), poor signage , time on site is not parking time , etc

12 minutes over is covered under clause #13 of the BPA CoP , ie:- grace periods , so the assessor should have ruled in your favour due to the anpr issues

Guys_Dad

So where was the "Grace period" point? And when was this appeal made? It looks like a new POPLA but can OP please confirm dates as it is important.

Also OP did not come here for advice on appeal points as with an 11 minute overstay, taking into account the difference between parking time and entry/exit time we would most certainly have emphasised grace.

salmosalaris

We're seeing some standard post Beavis wording from POPLA now . Time to start unpicking it

nigelbb

Another outrageous POPLA decision from a dimwitted assessor who doesn't understand the law. The case of a pay car park is far different to a free car park as per PE vs Beavis. The parking contract is with the occupier for a start not the PPC (check which VAT number is on the ticket).

In the Beavis case the motorist was only permitted a finite time to park before leaving whereas in a pay car park the motorist can stay for as long as they want & the offer of parking is not time limited. The money owed to the land occupier (not the PPC) is the parking tariff not some arbitrary 'fine'.

If a hotel guest checked out late they would at most have to pay for an extra night at the going rate not a pay a 'fine' of many times the room rate. Beavis is not a licence to 'fine' consumers.

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

If a hotel guest checked out late they would at most have to pay for an extra night at the going rate not a pay a 'fine' of many times the room rate. Beavis is not a licence to 'fine' consumers.

But it is up to the appellant to make their case to drive things home.