CP Plus - Motorway Service Area - Roadchef

Mexicano_2

Hi Umkomaas,

I received a letter from POPLA in July, which said:

Following the Court of Appeal judgment in ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis a further appeal has now been filed at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Where there is a specific application for an adjournment or where it appears, or has already appeared, to the Assessor that there is no other issue upon which the appeal could be determined, POPLA cases will be adjourned pending a decision of the Supreme Court. There is currently no date fixed at the Supreme Court but the Registry have indicated that the matter will not be heard before the end of July 2016 and judgment will then be reserved. However, the Appellant has indicated they will seek to have the matter linked with another case due for hearing later this year.

Accordingly, your case will now be adjourned to a provisional date for determination of xx 12 2015. The position should become clearer in the next few weeks, when the matter will be reviewed.

The_Deep

I cannot see any connection between this and Beavis. Beavis was an overstay in a free shopping car park, with no facility to pay for more time.


IN this case you can stay as long as you like as long as you pay for it, What is the Adjudicator thinking?

Umkomaas

But this should have all been dealt with within 5-6 weeks of the appeal - May 2015, long before Beavis/Supreme Court (July). Any other reasons for the delay?

Mexicano_2

Hi Umkomaas,

The only other information I have received was an earlier email from POPLA, in April 2015. It said, in full:


Before your appeal was determined, it was adjourned pending a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (B2/2014/2010).
As you will be aware, the decision of the Court of Appeal has now been handed down. A copy of the judgment is available on the POPLA website.
As previously stated would happen, the Lead Adjudicator has directed that the case will be adjourned for a further 21 days. The case will therefore not be listed before 21 days in order to allow both parties to make any representations in light of the Court of Appeal decision. It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.
Since a larger than usual number of appeals will therefore now fall to be considered on or after the same day, there may inevitably be some delay before your case is decided.


Neither this, nor the July letter (posted here last week), mean anything to me. I just assumed all POPLA appeals were being similarly adjourned.

If my appeal is the only one being adjourned, I have no idea why.

The_Deep

Beavis has no bearing on this case. He parked in a free retail park but overstayed the time allowed. There was no facility to pay for extra time.


There is no commercial justification in a MSA, you can park as long as you like as long as you pay for it.


You definitely owe them some money £10 -£12, but not the amount they are asking for.


I have no idea why they think that the result of the Beavis case, (next month) is relevant, but you are certainly not the only one to have your hearing adjourned.

Mexicano_2

The only other information I have received is the evidence pack from CP Plus, and then a second evidence pack at the end of April 2015. The second evidence pack contained one document only, copied below:


With regards to Mr xxxx’s claim that he believes the Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss;

Roadchef xxxx has 2 hours free parking, after which charges apply. We have not received the £12 parking payment for the additional 39 minutes that this vehicle remained on site.

In Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge Notice on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is not a successful defence in law.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, Sir Timothy Lloyd held that “for the law to prohibit a provision such as the overstaying charge, on the basis that it bears no relationship to the loss suffered…would fail to take account of the nature of the contract, with its gratuitous but valuable benefit of two hours’ free parking, and of the entirely legitimate reason for limiting that facility to a two hour period.”

The Judges considered whether a PCN could be invalidated on the grounds that the overstay was a genuine mistake, that the PCN is a penalty, that the Operator has no commercial interest or should charge a more modest amount and that the charge was a deterrent to the motorist. In the Court of Appeal judgment, these legal arguments were analysed and it was unanimously agreed that not one of them presented a legally valid basis for invalidating the charge.

Instead, it was found that the provision of a free parking facility on a retail park is a useful service for motorists and shopkeepers alike. In the Judges’ estimation, a driver who overstays the allowed time period inconveniences the former group and causes a material loss to the latter.

It was found that, in order to facilitate a turnover of visitors, the Terms and Conditions of a car park should provide a “disincentive to drivers.” The imposition of such charges was deemed to be “not extravagant or unconscionable and the contract was therefore enforceable at common law.”

The Court of Appeal also explained that municipal parking charges are identical in nature and that only this method of enforcement, rather than a graduated system of charges where motorists pay a fee proportionate to the length of the time they have overstayed, can deter widespread abuse of car parks.

We note that the appellant in this case has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the judgments passed down thus far by the County Court and the Court of Appeal have provided a clear endorsement of Operators’ rights to issue a PCN and established a legal precedent rebutting drivers who appeal a PCN on grounds that the charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

We therefore seek to rely on the authority of the higher Courts and would submit that the appellant in this case should not be afforded a defence in law that has been rejected by the judiciary.

Whilst we note that the above case relates to a PCN issued at a free car park with a limited time period, we highlight that not only has the appellant received the valuable benefit of 2 hours free parking which is on offer to all drivers, Mr xxxx remained on site for the period after the 2 hour limit for which he should have paid £12. As such there is a clear loss to be recovered in addition to the above legal case which did not involve paying for parking.


Does this help answer the question?

nigelbb

Their response states that £12 should have been paid to park in the MSA for over 2 hours. The loss payable to the landowner is £12 plus a small admin charge for purchasing keeper details from the DVLA & sending an invoice to the OP.

In the Beavis case the 'fine' is intended to deter anyone from staying over 2 hours. In this case the principle of deterrence is irrelevant as they welcome any driver paying £12 which actually entitles the motorist to park for up to an extra 22 hours. The OP only parked for 39 minutes. The loss of £12 plus admin cannot possibly be equated to the £90 demanded which is clearly a penalty intended to deter.

Umkomaas

Does this help answer the question?

Probably does. I don't expect POPLA at the time would have been examining the fine differentiation that The Deep has described. I'd guess any appeal that majored on GPEOL (and it was your opening appeal point) would have been quickly decanted into the 'Beavis' box - adjourned!

We started to advise during the summer months that any GPEOL appeal point should be moved from the opening of the appeal to then become the final appeal point in an attempt to avoid adjournment and get POPLA to deal with other substantive appeal points like 'Contract with Landowner' 'Locus standi' and 'Signage'. We also recommended the inclusion of a final paragraph after the GPEOL appeal point (from the NEWBIES sticky' as below:

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

Looks like POPLA got no further than GPEOL and your submission of the appeal was just prior to our advice changing.