POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Computersaysno wrote: »

Dull, dull, dull...GPEOL again.

Maybe every future initial appeal to PE should be worded.

Dear ParkingEye

This appeal is designed to save you £27 at POPLA.

GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSSES

Yours sincerely

Fatlad2

The Pitch

Parking Appeal
I submit my appeal against the parking charge imposed upon me as owner of the car RE61STR.
I wish to contest the charge on a number of grounds
1) The operator, the UK Parking Patrol Office (UKPPO) sent a Notice to Keeper to the registered keeper of the vehicle, purporting to be issued in accordance with POFA 2012 Schedule 4. However, POFA 2012 Schedule 4 specifically concerns parking. As can be seen from the photographs, submitted by the UK Parking Patrol Office (UKPPO), The vehicle was not parked, it was merely stopped to allow a passenger to alight. Accordingly, POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not applicable, hence there can be no keeper liability, and the Notice to Keeper is invalid and inappropriate

2) The information supplied by the UK Parking patrol office, with regard to appeal has been misleading, and incorrect.
“You now have a number of options:
1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100
2. Make an appeal to POPLA- The Independent Appeals Service by visiting their website at: ___.popla.org.uk/uploadevidence and completing the accompanying forms. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case, the Parking Charge Notice will increase to £100. POPLA will not accept supporting evidence relating to your case if it was not initially submitted in your original appeal to us. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. “
2a) The web address supplied is incomplete, only by chance did I add “.htm” as an extension and so gain access to the POPLA site.
2b) On submitting my reference number as directed, I was informed that the verification number supplied by UK PPO was invalid. Despite many attempts this remained the case. On advice I found that it was necessary to initiate an appeal from a different page within the site. And the link advised by UKPPO was inappropriate for my course of action
2c) The communication from UKPPO following an initial appeal, claims that only evidence submitted to them in the initial appeal could be submitted to POPLA. Not only was the first time this point was raised and was not mentioned in their previous communications, it is also incorrect and clearly intended to mislead and disadvantage any appeal to POPLA. Such an approach to obtain money under false pretences is underhand and deceptive, if not criminal fraud.
3) The airport road as are not ‘Private Land’ as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The airport roads are subject to byelaws and UKPPO would need to show evidence that this road is ‘relevant land’ as described in Schedule 4 paragraph 3 of said act. If the roads within the airport are subject to byelaws and accordingly they fall outwith the scope of POFA 2012 Schedule 4, again there is no keeper liability, and the Notice to Keeper is invalid.
4) The signage relevant to the alleged contravention is inadequate and poorly placed. On an airport visit, subsequent to the notification, 4 signs were noticeable. None of these were legible from the road much less by a driver in motion. Two of the signs were placed on the far side of the roundabout on approach to the airport roads, such they would only be noticeable to drivers leaving the airport, and hidden behind the roundabout and other traffic, on approach. One further sign was placed behind the location of the alleged contravention on the pavement, across a bus lane, on the far side from the position in which a car must be placed to follow the direction of the one-way traffic which it must join. That sign is parallel to the direction of travel, making it impossible to read if the driver is in motion. One further sign was placed on the far side of the junction where the car has stopped, across a roadway frequented by traffic making it unnoticeable and appear irrelevant. The size of the lettering on all of these signs is too small to be legible other than in close proximity to the sign at a distance which would be unsafe to drive.
The BPA code of practice Appendix B Mandatory Entrance Signs then ‘for an access road with a typical approach speed of 25mph the minimum capital height for group 1 text should be 90mm’ The text on these signs is well below that limit.
5) No Contract was Entered and No Losses Have Been Demonstrated
There was no contract between the driver and UK Parking Patrol Office. Contractual information on any signs was not visible, due to the poor sizing, when driving on the road and therefore at that time there was indication that any contract or restrictions applied. There was insufficient signage in the vicinity where the car is stopped. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.
As there was no contract and no damage was done to the road and that the road was not blocked when the driver stopped, there was in fact no loss at all. My initial appeal to UKPPO contended that no loss was incurred. This appeal was rejected but no evidence of loss was provided. I argue that the parking charge does not reflect the operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.
6) Fairness of Contract
The charge UKPPO are imposing is punitive and therefore unenforceable. The £100 charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass.
The £100 charge UKPPO are imposing is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations which gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e):
‘Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.’
Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states:
‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer’

And 5(2), states:
‘A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.’
The £100 charge UKPPO are imposing is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which states:
‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’
Newcastle Airport allows parking in front of the terminal at a cost of £1 for 0-15min and 15 minutes for free in the medium term parking close to where the car is stopped. Issuing a £100 charge clearly demonstrates an unfair/punitive and unreasonable charge and is therefore unenforceable.
7) Withholding Contract to Operate
Prior to submitting my appeal to UKPPO I wote to them asking for evidence of their right to operate. I was informed that whilst they were in possession of a signed agreement with the landowner which they were not able to supply to me. However, would be able to do so if required to go to court. The burden of proof now lies with the Operator.

Fatlad2

Winner!

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ___ arising out
of the presence at 1315 – Roads surrounding Newcastle Airport,
Woolsington (Newcastle Airport Woolsington NE138BZ) on __May 2013,
of a vehicle with registration mark RE61STR.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 17:15 on __ May 2013, a vehicle with registration mark RE61STR was
recorded on Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) with Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) dropping off a passenger on 1315 – Roads surrounding
Newcastle Airport, Woolsington (Newcastle Airport, Woolsington NE138BZ). A
parking charge notice was issued by the operator on 2 August 2013 to the
appellant for the alleged contravention of ‘Dropping off/ picking up in a
restricted area’.
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no
stopping zone whilst dropping off his passenger, and that the vehicle was
parked within clear view of two warning signs. The terms on the warning sign
read ‘Parking notice restricted zone. No stopping, parking, loading or
unloading in this area’. Photographs of the appellant’s vehicle within the
restriction zone and of the warning sign have been produced. The operator
submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly
displayed terms of parking.
It is the appellant’s case that the signage in the restricted zone is inadequate
and poorly placed. Furthermore, the appellant has submitted that the parking
charge does not reflect the operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.
The parking charge issued by the operator must represent a genuine preestimate
of the loss caused by the alleged breach. In failing to address this
submission, the operator has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.
Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s
submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.
I need not decide on any other issues.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Jane Slattery
Assessor

Fatlad2

Thanks to everyone on here for sensible support and guidance.

Computersaysno

Dull, dull, dull...GPEOL again.

Coupon-mad

Fatlad2 wrote: »

Thanks to everyone on here for sensible support and guidance.

Well done! It's only 'dull' because PE are so predictable, not a dull outcome for you!

Umkomaas

Fatlad2 wrote: »

Thanks to everyone on here for sensible support and guidance.

I'm afraid that POPLA completely chickened out on this one, particularly as the 'relevant land' issue was raised at Appeal Point 3, whereas GPEOL was at Appeal Point 5.

A POPLA win at an airport on 'relevant land' would have been very useful in tackling this outfit and VCS.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Well done FL2. :T

VoucherMan

Another one in the eye for the cowboys

Computersaysno

Do we really need any more GPEOL winners to be posted??

Coupon-mad

Yes, the thread starter is collating numbers - and all winners should get their moment to post here.