POPLA Decisions

Plicata

A successful appeal to POPLA, against a PCN issued by PondLife Ltd (trading as 'Parkingeye Ltd'). A big ‘thank you!’ to contributors on this forum who gave me the information needed to challenge these corporate pond life. The level of greed and incompetence displayed by Parkingeye is quite astounding. I hope that Parkingeye have to pay a fee to POPLA for losing the case.

For context, the Woolstaplers car park in Chichester is a single level underground car park with no external signage, apart from the blue ‘P’ signs. Access is via a two-way ramp, with no opportunity to review parking policy or cost before you hit the ANPR at the bottom of the ramp. We entered, thinking it was a public pay-and-display. There are no machines for payment and we did not have the necessary parking app on the phone, so chose to leave and park elsewhere. Whole process took 5 minutes and therefore is covered by BPA code of conduct consideration period (section 13.1).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

POPLA assessment and decision

21/02/2023

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Location:      Chichester Woolstaplers underground car park

Company:     Parking Eye Ltd

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They had clear intention to park and approached what they believe to be a public car park, however did not notice any signs suggesting it was private land. They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 19.1 through to 19.4 as the signs were not visibly noticeable. • They say they parked the vehicle and made reasonable effort to pay, realising that this was not a normal pay and display car park and saw no simple means of payment available, so decided not to park or any mention of online payment facilities and did not have an app installed on their phone. They say they returned to the vehicle and left. • They mention section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. They say a contract was not entered, no parking event occurred and no charge for non-payment can be applied. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal expanding considerably on signs. The appellant has provided a copy of the BPA Code of Practice, their appeal and rejection letter, the Department for Transport guidance, a zoomed in image of the operator’s sign and several images of the site, as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Up to 1 hour £0.90…Parking tariffs apply 8am – 6pm, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 13:47:23 and exiting at 13:53:15, totalling a stay of five minutes spent at site. The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was not registered against a payment on the date so issued the PCN. Upon review of the evidence provided it appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. They had clear intention to park and approached what they believe to be a public car park, however did not notice any signs suggesting it was private land. They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 19.1 through to 19.4 as the signs were not visibly noticeable. They say they parked the vehicle and made reasonable effort to pay, realising that this was not a normal pay and display car park and saw no simple means of payment available, so decided not to park or any mention of online payment facilities and did not have an app installed on their phone. They say they returned to the vehicle and left. They mention section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. They say a contract was not entered, no parking event occurred and no charge for non-payment can be applied. The burden of proof lies with the operator in order to prove that the PCN was issued correctly. The appellant’s vehicle was on site for five minutes and during this time they assessed the signs in order to see how they could pay. As they could not locate a suitable payment method to cover their stay they left. 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 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of 5 minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. Having reviewed the requirements of section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice above, I am satisfied that the appellant must be granted a consideration period in this instance. The appellant rejected the contract as they could not locate a compatible payment method as such. I am not satisfied they gained utility from those five minutes. I note they have mentioned other grounds of appeal, however, having been persuaded to allow the appeal on this basis, I have not needed to consider the other grounds further. Upon consideration of the above, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly and I must allow the appeal.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 

Despite the fact that I was certain that I had no case to answer, it was still a stressful process to go through. My research and the preparation of the appeals took a considerable amount of time – a total waste of my time. I am not a UK resident, so do not have an MP to complain to. Ironically, if the 2022 reduction of maximum charge to 50 pounds was still in place, I probably would have paid the 30 pounds ‘early discount’ just to get rid of it.

If my appeal had failed, I would certainly have refused to pay and gone to court. Thankfully, the assessor chose not to waste the court’s time. The Parkingeye pond life really need punishment for their unethical behaviour. They have lost multiple appeals yet fail to change their business practices. If there was a way that I could claim the penalty amount I had to pay to the car hire company, I would do.

Umkomaas

Well done @Plicata. Good win against PE. 

If there was a way that I could claim the penalty amount I had to pay to the car hire company, I would do.

Many hire companies waive/repay their admin fee on a successful appeal against the charge. Check out your hire agreement. 

Fruitcake

If a polite request to the hire company for a refund is refused, then you could put the charge into dispute with the financial company you used to pay the charge.

Check first to see if the hire company is a member of the BVRLA (hire/lease vehicle trade association) and see what it says about paying/refunding charges.

Plicata

Umkomaas said:

Many hire companies waive/repay their admin fee on a successful appeal against the charge. Check out your hire agreement. 

Thanks for the suggestion. I shall dig out the T&Cs.

B789

This wasn't a "penalty" and your hire agreement most likely does not cover alleged debts from a private company. In this case, as advised above, you should put a hold on the payment you made through your credit card and dispute this.

What the car hire company should have done is responded to the original PCN they received by identifying you as the hirer and including a copy of the hire agreement. At this point their involvement would have been finished in this dispute. The PPC then should re-issue the PCN as a Notice to Hirer.

They have not followed this procedure and have probably broken their own terms by paying your alleged debt which was not and never was a penalty or a fine. Check out if the hire firm is a member of the BVRLA and what they say about "parking on private land":  https://www.bvrla.co.uk/static/uploaded/61b3298b-a918-499b-9ac8b8bea2b726a0.pdf

1. Paying and recharging

   Rental and leasing companies that choose to pay a private parking charge notice and recharge it to their customer should ensure that their rental/leasing agreement allows them to do this.

   A sample clause, which would allow you to pay and recharge, is: “You will be responsible for paying the following charges:

   All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence parking offence or parking notice, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away.”

Plicata

B789 said:

This wasn't a "penalty" and your hire agreement most likely does not cover alleged debts from a private company. In this case, as advised above, you should put a hold on the payment you made through your credit card and dispute this.

Sorry, that was my bad wording. It was an admin fee for processing the PCN they received from Parkingeye, as per correct procedure. They did not pay anything to Parkingeye. The 35 pound admin fee is mentioned in their T&C.

Fruitcake

Does it specifically mention the admin fee in the Ts and Cs for dealing with private parking charges from unregulated private parking companies, or only for fines and penalties from an authority?

It's still worth asking for it back since you can prove the NTK should never have been issued therefore you should not be penalised by the hire company for something that was not your fault.
Politely remind them that other hire companies are available.

Coupon-mad

Plicata said:

B789 said:

This wasn't a "penalty" and your hire agreement most likely does not cover alleged debts from a private company. In this case, as advised above, you should put a hold on the payment you made through your credit card and dispute this.

Sorry, that was my bad wording. It was an admin fee for processing the PCN they received from Parkingeye, as per correct procedure. They did not pay anything to Parkingeye. The 35 pound admin fee is mentioned in their T&C.

Thatcis standard but most do refund it if you prove the PCN was cancelled.

B789

Read the terms on your hire agreement and take note what it says about invoices from private parking companies… and, equally important, what it doesn’t say about them.

You did not receive any “penalty” or “fine”.

textbook

Just read this-

 Whole process took 5 minutes and therefore is covered by BPA code of conduct consideration period (section 13.1).

I was in my Parking Eye car park for five minutes, does this mean I can get off with a POPLA appeal?   If so, what section/category do tick?