Napier Parking POPLA appeal refused

dputters

I stopped outside the Post Office to obtain change for the parking meter and by the time I had the correct change I had already been issued a Fixed Charge Notice.

The sign in the carpark (which isn't very clear) says that correct change must be obtained before leaving your vehicle (which I think would be very difficult?) and the observation time on this ticket was for 11 seconds. As they did not leave a period of grace before issuing the ticket I then appealed to POPLA which has been refused as they said that Napier Parking had not breached their contract even though there was no respective period of grace.

What do I do next as I don't want to be dragged to court! Any help would be great.

Herzlos

You're still under no obligation to pay, so ignore it. If they do take you to court, you can come up with a solid defence based on the grace period.

No judge is going to let them win if you were ticketed 11 seconds after entering, and there's no way anyone can find it reasonable to have to find change without leaving the car. So don't worry about it

spacey2012

Why did you admit to anything other than been away from the car for 11 seconds ?
Did they make it too easy enough for you and you wanted to give them a better more sporting chance ?

The_Slithy_Tove

You really should have come here before submitting your POPLA appeal. There are so many more points you could have win with.

Oh well, we are where we are. All you can do now is ignore everything that comes from Napier or their debt collection agency, with the exception of a Letter Before Claim or actual court papers. Either of those MUST be actioned. If you get them, come back here for the next steps.

Coupon-mad

Napier are a bit difficult to deal with as they do try small claims and often they do own the land (or a sister company does). But I would ignore it until you get something resembling a 'Letter before Claim' and if you get that, respond to Napier having read this guidance:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4705657

Even if it goes to a small claim hearing they won't necessarily win, if you defended it strongly. And the POFA 2012 restricts the amount they can claim from a registered keeper to the amount of the parking charge (without the discount of course), plus if they were lucky, a court fee and possibly small expenses like a train fare. So if you lost you'd probably pay less than the letters will suggest! And you won't just get a CCJ either because if you lose you can just pay to clear it up.

So wait and see and keep all letters; only respond to a pre-court 'Letter Before Claim' or 'Letter before Action' (and not from a debt collector third party, don't respond to them!). Hope you never admitted to being the driver because that throws away LOADS of defence points a registered keeper would have.

Guys_Dad

Can you confirm whether or not there were any signs at the entrance to the car park? And if so, do they meet the criteria here for signs

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_CoP_June_2013_update.pdf

Section 18. and Appendix B

dputters

I'm pretty sure that Napier own this particular carpark and they did display a sign iforming drivers of the 'have correct money befiore leaving your vehicle' part, although it is in rather small print.

I had to admit that I was driving as I was in my dad's car and I didn't want him to be bombarded with Napiers letters...

The reason I appealed though is because the observation time was only 11 seconds and surely this is not enough period of grace? Dies the 'correct change required sign' negate this?

nigelbb

It looks like you appealed on grounds of mitigation (it was only 11 seconds) & not on grounds or a "reasonable grace period". Here is what the BPA Ltd CoP has to say on the matter.

13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.

Coupon-mad

dputters wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that Napier own this particular carpark and they did display a sign iforming drivers of the 'have correct money befiore leaving your vehicle' part, although it is in rather small print.

I had to admit that I was driving as I was in my dad's car and I didn't want him to be bombarded with Napiers letters...

The reason I appealed though is because the observation time was only 11 seconds and surely this is not enough period of grace? Dies the 'correct change required sign' negate this?

Did you post about this before, as I recall helping someone to write a POPLA appeal against Napier on pepipoo forums and have not heard whether it worked or not. I was concerned because Napier had fairly clear signs up and they (or a sister company) were the landowners, and I know Napier have won small claims before as they are in a stronger position than some.

In that case on pepipoo I did include in the POPLA appeal all the usual winning arguments such as they 'have not shown the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of any loss' and I even included the usual 'prove there is a contract with the landowner that allows this specific company as creditor, to pursue motorists to the courts or that Napier themselves (not a sister company) are the landowners'.

Did you include any of the usual advice in your POPLA appeal, or not? Was the pepipoo case yours?

Could you kindly copy & paste the decision from the POPLA adjudcator plus what you put in your appeal - so we can learn from this? Many thanks.

Pains me to say I would consider actually paying them if you are not confident enough to beat them in a small claims court later.

dputters

No that wasn't me.

I'm afraid that I appealed to POPLA before doing any research believing that the 11 seconds observation time was so obserd that they would uphold it but it seems not.

I'm waiting for a reply from the BPA employee who reviewed the appeal then I think you're right and may end up having to pay to avoid being dragged through court, even if my chances are 50/50.

Coupon-mad

dputters wrote: »

No that wasn't me.

I'm afraid that I appealed to POPLA before doing any research believing that the 11 seconds observation time was so obserd that they would uphold it but it seems not.

I'm waiting for a reply from the BPA employee who reviewed the appeal then I think you're right and may end up having to pay to avoid being dragged through court, even if my chances are 50/50.

Awww...you don't have to pay of course but can see where you are coming from with a PPC who are unusual in probably owning the land and definitely having won in small claims before. And I seem to recall their signage is better in its wording than most bog-standard PPCs. COuld be remembering it wrong but I think they sometimes word it as a 'contractual agreement to pay to park without a permit/ticket' rather than a 'charge for breach'.

Would you mind copying your POPLA appeal decision at least so that other newbies can learn what not to do (sorry...).