POPLA Decisions

Skew

Decision - Unsuccesful
Company - ParkingEye

Popla Decision
The terms and conditions of the car park state you are allowed to stay on the site for two hours 30 minutes for a charge of £1. In this instance the appellant stayed on the site for three hours and 22 minutes. The appellant states that the charge is not commercially justifiable, to the amount of time overstayed on the site. 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. Ultimately, the appellant has parked at the location for three hours 22 minutes, but only paid for two hours 30 minutes. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.

I submitted this before the decision from the supreme court had been made so only defence was no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Do you think I could challenge as this car park was paid rather than free?

If not then do I just pay up?

salmosalaris

More cut and paste template hogwash.
Unfortunately it doesn't sound like you expanded on the difference between Beavis and your case .
I'm not saying it would have made any difference but I'm still waiting to see an assessment in a case where the distinction has been spelled out clearly .

Coupon-mad

Skew wrote: »

Decision - Unsuccesful
Company - ParkingEye

Popla Decision
The terms and conditions of the car park state you are allowed to stay on the site for two hours 30 minutes for a charge of £1.

In this instance the appellant stayed on the site for three hours and 22 minutes. The appellant states that the charge is not commercially justifiable, to the amount of time overstayed on the site.

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.

Ultimately, the appellant has parked at the location for three hours 22 minutes, but only paid for two hours 30 minutes. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.

I submitted this before the decision from the supreme court had been made so only defence was no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Do you think I could challenge as this car park was paid rather than free?

If not then do I just pay up?

If POPLA didn't send you an email (recently) giving you 7 days to add to your appeal, in view of the Beavis case, then object to POPLA.

Also, if you did not get an evidence pack from PE, object to POPLA, tell them you were never served with any evidence pack and ask for the case to be re-listed and time allowed for you to respond to one or both of the above issues. We can help you write something to try to knock it into POPLA's heads that Beavis doesn't (shouldn't) relate to a P&D car park with a quantified loss (tariff).

If you did receive both then you were on a sticky wicket if you never rebutted and were dodgy to go for only GPEOL in the first place. If there is any mileage in complaining to the onsite retailer or landowner, then go for that, with bells on.

Skew

Unfortunately I received both although missed the email asking for my comments to their evidence until it was too late. My own fault.

Happy to have a go on differences between P&D and the Beavis case as it looks like that's all I've got.

Coupon-mad

Skew wrote: »

Unfortunately I received both although missed the email asking for my comments to their evidence until it was too late. My own fault.

Happy to have a go on differences between P&D and the Beavis case as it looks like that's all I've got.

But you have no reason to revert to POPLA, that's out the window now as you did get an evidence pack and did get the email asking for further submissions after the Beavis case.

If they pursue this to small claims (and they 99% WILL) you will have more to go on because you can include anything in your defence. But defences are harder now, due to the Beavis case so you'd need something else that distinguishes your case and even then a Judge might just go, 'Nope, I'm persuaded by the Beavis decision...NEXT!' Worst case scenario, you end up forking out £200 if you lose.

I would be complaining to the landowner/retailer and try to get somewhere with that now. REALLY go for that angle to try to get it cancelled, especially of it was a retailer where you can show money was spent (if you can prove that, also email PE with that proof of spending now).

The email for the legal dept at PE is:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

And they do cancel when they see receipts even at a late stage. Also that email address will be useful to you if you rattle the cage of the landowner/retailers and get any email you can forward to PE in mitigation, e.g. 'look, see the attached email, the retailer wants it cancelled as the driver was a genuine patron but I realise the case went through POPLA so I offer £30 to resolve this dipute' could be emailed to PE at any stage including LBCCC stage. We know PE will settle for sums but normally more like £50 or £60, but don't offer that high...

sach1636

Dear boarders,

I need advise if I should appeal or pay up to PE. It is bit unfortunate in my case as I am landlord who had parked vehicle in allocated parking space.

*** Update: I have created new thread. I will post results of POPLA appeal here ***

bod1467

Please start your own NEW thread ... this one is for POPLA results, not POPLA help.

Ralph-y

Hi and welcome to the forum .....

as above please go to

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

look top left for new thread .....

there are good reasons as to why we ask this .....

every case can have big differences in the detail ..........

messages / posts can be missed .......

so to keep some sort of order we ask for one case per thread ......

so

re post your original post on a new thread and I am sure you will get the help / advice you are after

good luck in winning this

Ralph:cool:

chuckie79

A huge thank you for the help I received with appealing this ticket


POPLA assessment and decision 12/02/2016
Verification Code

6062935255

Decision
Successful Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Sirak Solomon

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked at the site without purchasing any parking time.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the NTK does not specify the land in question. The appellant states that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is not accurate.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.

Ralph-y

WELL DONE .... :j

and thanks for posting up the appeal .....

can I ask if you have signed the petition

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

Ralph:cool: