IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.
POPLA Decisions
Latest MSE News and Guides
MoneySavingExpert
Chair, Martin Lewis · Editor, Marcus Herbert
Replies
Or rather... there are two GroupNexus car parks there, both with different terms and conditions.
The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking without displaying a valid ticket or permit.
Within their appeal, the appellant states that they are the keeper and declines the operator’s invitation to name the driver. They say that an attempt was made to purchase a ticket but the machines were out of order. The appellant says that the driver was not in possession of a smart phone to pay via app or phone call. They say that the driver tried to find a parking attendant, but one was not present. The appellant says that there is nothing on signage to state that parking should not take place if the machine is out of order and the driver took reasonable steps to purchase a ticket. They explain that the parking attendant was fully aware that the ticket machine was out of order when issuing the PCN. The appellant feels that the PCN amount is excessive, disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They are willing to pay the original tariff of £6. Evidence of the appellant’s payment has been provided towards the appeal. The appellant has provided comments in response to the parking operator’s evidence pack, reiterating their grounds of appeal.
It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case, the appellant has stated that they are the keeper of the vehicle and believes that the PCN amount is excessive, disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am satisfied this is a reference paragraph 19.4 of the BPA code as follows: “If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes:…bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and following any applicable government signage regulations”. No driver has been identified in this case and the operator is seeking to hold the registered keeper as liable for this PCN. I reviewed the signs in this case and must note the reference stating: ‘’Parking contraventions will be dealt with by the issue of a parking charge notice of £100.00’’ is written in a much smaller font than the conditions and tariffs that precede it. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. As such, I cannot consider the evidence has rebutted the appellant’s grounds in relation to adequate notice and I must allow this appeal. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
The ticket was issued by Corporate Services (Parking Management), Hereford
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Please join us for the upcoming Government Consultation about the level of parking charges.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.
If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.
If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
BOOM! They never sent an NtK so right decision made ;-)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6408082/ukpc-query/p1
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
The operator’s case is that the motorist did not clearly display a valid permit.
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • the signage is insufficient. • the site’s boundary is unclear. • there isn’t any evidence of the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. • the motorist was not allowed a grace period. • the notice to keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided images and various links within their appeal document. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.
From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. Within their appeal, the appellant has indicated they are the keeper of the vehicle. In response to this, the operator has begun to pursue the appellant for the unpaid parking charge. The operator has not made reference to PoFA 2012 and it has not provided any evidence to show that a notice to keeper has been issued. As the notice to keeper has not been provided, I am unable to determine whether the parking operator has followed the correct process to allow it to pursue the keeper of the vehicle for the unpaid parking charge. There is no evidence provided to suggest that the operator has made a request for keeper details to the DVLA. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is liable for the parking charge. While I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6390801/spring-parking#latest
Well done.
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking without making payment.
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • The Notice to Keeper is not Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. • The signage is not prominent. • There is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • The operator does not have sufficient landowner authority. • The machines were malfunctioning. • The photographic evidence is not clear. • The operator is breaching Section 19.6 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has commented on the operator’s evidence reiterating the grounds made in their initial statement. Additionally they state that: • The car park was poorly lit and the signs are not clear. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support the appeal: • A copy of an article. • A copy of their PCN.
When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by choosing to remain on the land. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “BETWEEN 2 – 3 HOURS £3.00…DRIVERS ARE REQUIRED TO PURCHASE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF PARKING TIME TO COVER THE FULL DURATION OF THEIR STAY…BREACH OF ANY TERM OR CONDITION WILL RESULT IN THE DRIVER BEING LIABLE FOR A PARKING CHARGE OF £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 21:14, and exiting at 23:26, totalling a stay of 2 hours and 12 minutes. The operator has provided an exemption list which contains a record of payments logged on their system against the motorists Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). This record confirms that no payment was made against the appellant’s VRM. The operator has issued the PCN as the driver did not make a valid payment for their stay. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. • The Notice to Keeper is not Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. In order for the operator to hold the keeper liable for the PCN, it must meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4, paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, it appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached and, the name and current address for the driver has not been provided. Furthermore, the notice sent meets the relevant requirements of POFA. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability to the keeper. • The signage is not prominent. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice says operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. I am satisfied therefore, from the evidence provided by the operator that the signage is indeed legible and conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. I am also satisfied that from this signage a contract would have been formed. • The car park was poorly lit and the signs are not clear. The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that the signage is readable during the hours of darkness. I am satisfied that the operator has fulfilled this part of the code. • There is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. I note the appellant states there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorists attention within the signage. Having reviewed the signs, I am of the view that the charge is sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorists on the signs. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. • The operator does not have sufficient landowner authority. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case, the operator has provided a contract between Northwest Parking Management and Micropace Limited that runs from 22/12/2021 and will run for a minimum period of 5 years. The operator has therefore provided a valid contract. • The machines were malfunctioning. Whilst I recognise the appellant’s point here, the operator has also offered payment via an app and via phone, which the appellant could have utilised. Alternatively, if these methods of payment were not accessible to the driver, they should have left as they could not pay and found more suitable parking elsewhere. • The photographic evidence is not clear. I acknowledge the copy of their PCN and appreciate what the appellant is saying however, POPLA considers that the ANPR technology is generally accurate. If an operator provides ANPR images, then we will consider it reliable, unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. On this occasion, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest the ANPR cameras were not accurate. Therefore, this has no effect on my decision. • The operator is breaching Section 19.6 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. If the appellant feels that the operator has charged them whilst on the phone above the basic rate they can contact The BPA who sets the Code of Practice that the operator has agreed to comply with. What actions an operator takes after the PCN is issued is solely at the discretion of the operator and has no effect on the validity of the parking charge. POPLA’s remit is solely to determine whether a PCN was issued correctly according to the terms and conditions of a site. This is not something POPLA can investigate as it is not within our remit. I acknowledge the copy of the article the appellant has attached showing that other drivers experienced the same issues however, POPLA can only assess the validity of this particular PCN, we can’t take into consideration other motorists parking events as they have entered into their own contract and as such, have no bearing on this case. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver did not make a valid payment for their stay, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/people/hartlepool-marina-businesses-warning-to-motorists-after-void-transaction-tickets-lead-to-parking-fines-3914179