POPLA Decisions

Redx

success against Parking Eye , Aire St , Leeds

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5450537

Decision Successful
Assessor Name xxxx Txxxr
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant has failed to purchase sufficient time to cover their stay in the car park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that there is no contract, as they reviewed the terms and conditions and decided not to park. The appellant advises that the operator has no authority to issue PCNs on this land, and that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant further states that the signage is unclear and that the ANPR is unreliable and inaccurate.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number XX12XXX, entering Aire Street car park at 15:25, and exiting at 15:37, totalling a stay of 12 minutes. The operator states that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant has failed to make payment for their time in the car park. The appellant advises that the operator does not have the sufficient authority to issue charges on the land. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a site agreement in response to this ground of appeal. Upon review of this, I cannot consider that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention, as the document is signed on the date of 1st April 2016. The date of the parking event in this case is the 12th March 2016, as such I cannot consider that the operator had the sufficient authority on the date of the event, to issue PCNs on the land. As such, I cannot determine that the PCN has been issued correctly While I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, I have not considered these as I have already allowed the appeal on this ground.

---

Lack of Landowner Authority won the case, but should have been won on Grace Periods had there been authority in place as it was 12 minutes on site, ie:- pay or leave

well done

da0092

Failure against JAS, as decided by Wright Hassall:

*********************************************************

Dear Sir/Madam

Car Park Operator J.A.S. Parking Solutions Ltd also t/as J.A.S. Parking

Solutions

Appellant xxx xxxx
Appeal Verification Code (“the Appeal”) xxxxxxxxxx
Parking Charge Reference Number xxxxxxx
Wright Hassall Reference POPLA Appeal Outcome: Rejected

We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.

Reasons for dismissing the Appeal

• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the signage at the car park is not adequate and that they were unaware that they had entered into a contract by remaining at the location. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the site. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge Notices. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Car Park Operator has failed to prove that the Appellant left the site, in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park. We are receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator in respect of this, namely a signed and dated witness statement confirming that the Appellant was seen parking their vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

To the Appellant

To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.

To the Car Park Operator

As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment. If payment is not forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.

This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.

Yours faithfully

WRIGHT HASSALL LLP

Zero_Gravitas

That's the first Wright Hassell rejection I've seen...

However I'd be willing to make a small wager that all rejections will be virtually identical template rejections, adding/removing paragraphs as necessary.

No wonder they were cheapest...

Northlakes

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Car Park Operator has failed to prove that the Appellant left the site, in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park. We are receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator in respect of this, namely a signed and dated witness statement confirming that the Appellant was seen parking their vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.


Surely this can't be right! Failure to mitigate loss! No wonder Wright Hassall were the cheapest quote!

Umkomaas

Northlakes wrote: »

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Car Park Operator has failed to prove that the Appellant left the site, in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park. We are receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator in respect of this, namely a signed and dated witness statement confirming that the Appellant was seen parking their vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.


Surely this can't be right! Failure to mitigate loss! No wonder Wright Hassall were the cheapest quote!

And was it the appellant leaving the car park, or the driver? Has Wright Hassall read VCS -v- Ibbotson which sets the 'standard' for 'leaving the site' PPC cases; coincidentally its 4th anniversary is today (original 16/05/12).

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

henrik777

Umkomaas wrote: »

And was it the appellant leaving the car park, or the driver? Has Wright Hassall read VCS -v- Ibbotson which sets the 'standard' for 'leaving the site' PPC cases; coincidentally its 4th anniversary is today (original 16/05/12).

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

They are not chasing losses anymore so nothing to mitigate, Beavis

Umkomaas

henrik777 wrote: »

They are not chasing losses anymore so nothing to mitigate, Beavis

There was more to the Ibbotson case than just mitigation of loss.

henrik777

Umkomaas wrote: »

There was more to the Ibbotson case than just mitigation of loss.

And was it the appellant leaving the car park, or the driver? Has Wright Hassall read VCS -v- Ibbotson which sets the 'standard' for 'leaving the site' PPC cases

Post Beavis, what parts do you think are relevant to the statement you made ?

Umkomaas

henrik777 wrote: »

Post Beavis, what parts do you think are relevant to the statement you made ?

How about 'signage'? Beavis certainly increased the importance placed on signage.

How about definition of 'Premises' or 'Site' or 'Boundary'. Where does Beavis override?

Contract content in the context of the 'essentially binding' BPA CoP.

JUDGE MciLWAINE: Right, in which case this case is struck out, and I will tell you why it is struck out, because of the following, and I am not hearing any more evidence.
Are you aware of the British Parking Association Code of Practice? It says, page 6, clause 6,
"Under the Code you must have written authorisation of a land owner or his appointed agent before you can carry out parking control and enforcement of the land in question. The authorisation must say that the land owner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice."
I am not sure if it says that in your contract. I have quickly read it. I am not going to comment on any of that, unless you wish me to do so.
I go to clause 6(i)(i). "It must" -the word is "must" - "also set out" -and it goes through a number of issues.
"The definition of the land on which you may operate so that the boundaries of the land may be clearly defined."
I have raised "2.
my point on that before.
Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations including any restrictions on the hours of operation; any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may or may not be subject to parking control and enforcement."
I do not think I have seen any of that on your contract.
"Who has responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs?" That is in your contract. "The
definition of services provided by each party to the agreement", and then the clincher,
"Whether or not the land owner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges due from the drivers charged for unauthorised parking,"

.

Lots of the above is germane and not overridden by Beavis.

This was intended as a helpful resource to the OP. Do you feel it not helpful. Do you think Beavis overrides any 'leaving the site' cases and Ibbotson is totally redundant?

Ibbotson was much more than GPEOL.

It is rather telling that - to my knowledge - no PPC has pursued a 'leaving the site' through the courts since Ibbotson.

So, are you here to help the OP (if so, how?), or just visiting to score points?

Northlakes

Umkomaas wrote: »

How about 'signage'? Beavis certainly increased the importance placed on signage.

How about definition of 'Premises' or 'Site' or 'Boundary'. Where does Beavis override?

Contract content in the context of the 'essentially binding' BPA CoP.



Lots of the above is germane and not overridden by Beavis.

This was intended as a helpful resource to the OP. Do you feel it not helpful. Do you think Beavis overrides any 'leaving the site' cases and Ibbotson is totally redundant?

Ibbotson was much more than GPEOL.

It is rather telling that - to my knowledge - no PPC has pursued a 'leaving the site' through the courts since Ibbotson.

So, are you here to help the OP (if so, how?), or just visiting to score points?

When I read through again the court transcript Umkomaas is absolutely right that there is more to this judgement, particularly about the boundaries and locus standi. Thanks for that insight.