Parking Eye - Snowden Mountain Railway

Coupon-mad

LJJ wrote: »

So here is the decision - gutted!!! Thanks to everyone who helped with the appeal anyway

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Anthony Davidson

Assessor summary of operator case No parking ticket was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
She wishes to appeal against the invoice, issued as a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on he following grounds. 1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers 2. No keeper liability under POFA. 3. Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss 4. Unfair Terms


Assessor supporting rational for decision


The terms and conditions of the car park state “Parking Tariffs apply, Note: These tariffs include 20 minutes free stay”. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the site will result in a parking charge of £100.

The operator has issued the appellant a Parking Charge (PCN) as no parking ticket purchased. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant entering the car park at 11:07:15 and exiting the car park at 16:14:50. A total duration of 5 hours, 7 minutes and 35 seconds.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the layout plan of the signage at the site in question along with signs that provide the appellant with the required terms and conditions of the car park.

The operator has confirmed there are signs at the entrance of the car park that clearly state the terms and conditions. There are an additional 20 signs situated around the car park that advise of the terms and conditions.

The operator has provided a copy of a printed audit trail of the registration plate Axxxxxx which was not on the list on this specific day. It clearly demonstrates the appellant did not purchase a pay and display ticket.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. I am satisfied that the operator has provided a satisfactory response and had provided evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has demonstrated that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question.

The appellant states in their appeal that the operator has no keep liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA 2012) After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator. I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Section 8 of PoFA 2012.

The appellant says the amount of £100 demanded by Parking Eye is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis.

Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty.

Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I consider the signage sufficient for the appellant to have read and understood the terms and conditions of parking.

Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable.

While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court By leaving the vehicle parked, the appellant has indicated acceptance of the terms and conditions.

When doing so, the appellant equally accepted that the operator would issue a PCN for failing to comply with any of the conditions. As such, I must conclude that the appellant has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the site. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

He's ignored the rebuttal points you made. There is no evidence he has read the Beavis rebuttal response you sent and he has certainly misquoted the POFA.

Beavis does not apply to all car parks/situations and he hasn't read your final submission, surely? He has just said you appealed the charge was not a GPEOL as regards the charge itself, but you ADDED a submission last week which explained why the Beavis case in fact shows that GPEOL was/is actually applicable to a financial contract.

After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator. I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Section 8 of PoFA 2012.

How could they have done? ANPR PCNs by post don't fall within paragraph 8 of schedule 4.

And in paragraph 9 it requires the PCN to state the unpaid parking charges due from the driver as at the day before the PCN date. The tariff (the outstanding sum due from the driver) has to be described along with the circumstances which led to the charge (not either/or). PE's PCNs contain none of that (and were not scrutinised against the POFA in the Beavis case).

salmosalaris

Either your rebuttal was too late or POPLA aren't intetested in the paid parking argument and are going to bend Beavis to fit every case.

salmosalaris

Did you get an evidence pack from PE ?

Guys_Dad

LJJ wrote: »

I am satisfied that the operator has provided a satisfactory response and had provided evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has demonstrated that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question We have seen a recent case where the proof of authority was submitted to POPLA by the PPC but no copy sent to the appellant. Did you get a copy of the contract or any proof of their authority?

The appellant says the amount of £100 demanded by Parking Eye is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom,

I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court By leaving the vehicle parked, the appellant has indicated acceptance of the terms and conditions.

When doing so, the appellant equally accepted that the operator would issue a PCN for failing to comply with any of the conditions. As such, I must conclude that the appellant has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the site. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

It seems to me that the differences between Beavis and other situations such as this (Beavis was 2 hours max - here was pay by the hour etc) is a nuance that the expert contributors on here recognise but the same can't be said for POPLA adjudicators. But was this a WRIGHT HASSALL stayed adjudication?

If it represents the view of new POPLA - and we shall soo find out - the as far as POPLA appeals go, then GPEOL will need to be considered as dead. Courts may take a different view, of course, as some of the judges may be persuaded with a decent defence.

But in fairness to OPs, we need to keep an eye out for the next batch of new POPLA decisions that turn on GPEOL and see exactly whether they are suffering from Beavis blindness or not and then offer our advice accordingly.

I agree with the previous 2 post by Salmosalris.

salmosalaris

@OP
You need to make a complaint to POPLA , I don't think the rebuttal you submitted hasceven been looked at , it certainly isn't mentioned in your grounds of appeal by the assessor.
I ask again , did you receive an evidence pack from PE ?

salmosalaris

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It seems to me that the differences between Neavis and other situations such as this (Beavis was 2 hours max - here was pay by the hour etc) is a nuance that the expert contributors on here recognise but the same can't be said for POPLA adjudicators. But was this a WRIGHT HASSALL stayed adjudication?

If it represents the view of new POPLA - and we shall soo find out - the as far as POPLA appeals go, then GPEOL will need to be considered as dead. Courts may take a different view, of course, as some of the judges may be persuaded with a decent defence.

But in fairness to OPs, we need to keep an eye out for the next batch of new POPLA decisions that turn on GPEOL and see exactly whether they are suffering from Beavis blindness or not and then offer our advice accordingly.

I agree with the previous 2 post by Salmosalris.

Gpeol as a term is dead . But there must be a legitimate interest in enforcing a proportionate charge for breach of contract where that charge exceeds any loss and I am yet to hear a compelling reason what the legitimate interest is in imposing £100 for failure to pay a fiver, and how that charge is proportionate , when the fiver would have entitled the vehicle to park as it did .
If so a charge for breach of contract needs the Claimant to have no more legitimate interest than the charge is necessary to prevent breach of contract . That is obviously a complete nonsense

Guys_Dad

salmosalaris wrote: »

Gpeol as a term is dead . But there must be a legitimate interest in enforcing a proportionate charge for breach of contract where that charge exceeds any loss

Regrettably the SC seem to have convinced "the other side" that £100 is proportionate in 99% of cases.

On your first point about GPEOL being dead, I fear that you and I are currently in the minority on this. I hope we are wrong, but I have severe doubts. In fact, Inhave already said that I consider it a hindrance rather than a help. But it is still early days for new POPLA and I wait for more cases.

Hassall POPLA adjudications from the stayed cases are a different animal, of course.

salmosalaris

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Regrettably the SC seem to have convinced "the other side" that £100 is proportionate in 99% of cases.

On your first point about GPEOL being dead, I fear that you and I are currently in the minority on this. I hope we are wrong, but I have severe doubts. In fact, Inhave already said that I consider it a hindrance rather than a help. But it is still early days for new POPLA and I wait for more cases.

Hassall POPLA adjudications from the stayed cases are a different animal, of course.

The SC determined that £85 was proportionate to the individual legitimate interests pursued in Beavis. In a scenario where the vehicle would be fully entitled to park had a minor term of the contract been complied with ,eg payment of a small tariff, display of permit, correct input of VRN etc , then those legitimate interests in the judgment are conspicuous by their absence bar one, that being the need for Parking Eye to make a profit.

POPLA are coming out with " efficient management of the car park" as a legitimate interest . I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous comments that simply preventing breach cannot be a legitimate interest .

Guys_Dad

salmosalaris wrote: »

POPLA are coming out with " efficient management of the car park" as a legitimate interest . I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous comments that simply preventing breach cannot be a legitimate interest .

Hence "Beavis blindness".

catfunt

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Originally Posted by LJJ
I am satisfied that the operator has provided a satisfactory response and had provided evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has demonstrated that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question We have seen a recent case where the proof of authority was submitted to POPLA by the PPC but no copy sent to the appellant. Did you get a copy of the contract or any proof of their authority?

IIRC.... There was a very recent case (in the last few days) where the evidence pack from the PPC did not include a witness statement to support that apparently the PPC did have landowner permission to issue parking charges, but it was in the pack that POPLA got.
The motorist therefore did not rebut the witness statement as being insufficient as he would have done had it been in the evidence pack.

I will try and find the thread and add a link to this post.

I smell bullcrap going on here.

To the OP - was there anything about authority to issue parking charge notices in the evidence pack you got from PE?