Secure-A-Space, 5 PCN's in 17 days in allocated parking space.

dazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It can hurt him if he returns to the UK and wants another tenancy.

It would be null and void because an English County Court cannot hear a case against a non-resident.

His most satisfying course of action would probably be to write to the parking scum when he leaves the UK and inform them of his new address in Italy (or do it now if he currently has a permanent address in Italy).

Other than that I can't see why this thread is still going on. Just ignore the scum. Although doubtless the PoPLA groupies here will continue to encourage the uncle to continue with this pointless appeals pantomime.

BiscuitMuncher

I'm posting this POPLA decision here as it might be useful to someone drafting an appeal at the moment or to the regulars who may want to comment.

I received the operator evidence packs for PCNs 3 & 4, quite entertaining and they seem to be clutching at straws, I'll post that up tomorrow.

The site they have quoted in all four appeals as having landowner authority for is another development 13 miles away from where the PCNs were issued. I have respectfully pointed this out to POPLA in my rebuttals for PCNs 3 & 4, just waiting to see what they say about that.

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Timothy Jessop

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they are a genuine resident and as such had authority to park in their allocated parking bay. They have also stated that the operator has no authority to pursue the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or to form a contract with motorists and as such there was no contract.

The appellant has raised that the signage within the parking area was misleading, that no notice to keeper was received and that the PCN issued does not demonstrate a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.

The appellant has also stated that their case cannot be compared to the case of ParkingEye Ltd. V. Beavis as there can be no loss where the car park is for residents only.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Firstly I will note that I am satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver in this instance and as such the operator is not attempting to transfer liability of the PCN to the keeper.

The operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. I am satisfied that this shows the operator has been granted the authority to issue and pursue PCNs on this land.

The appellant has provided an extract of their tenancy agreement, however I cannot determine that this would give the appellant exclusive possession over the parking space, and The signage displayed within the car park states “By parking outside of a marked or allocated bay and/or not clearly displaying a valid permit which must be displayed in windscreen of vehicle or authorised by site management will result in the driver agreeing to pay a parking charge notice of £100.00…” 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.

Whilst the photographic evidence of the vehicle shows that in lieu of a permit, the car was displaying a note explaining that the vehicle belonged to a resident and that a permit has been applied for, the terms and conditions require either a valid permit, or authorisation from the site management. I have not been provided with any evidence that shows the appellant was granted authorisation to park without displaying a valid permit.

The appellant’s case is also that as genuine residents, they had the right to park in this area and they have provided a copy of their lease agreement in support of this. This agreement does not grant exclusive possession of the parking space, it only grants the right to park within the space. As exclusive possession is not defined for the parking space within this lease, I am satisfied that the landowner’s contract with the operator grants the operator the authority to manage the car park, and the appellant’s lease agreement would not supersede this.

As such the appellant would still be required to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park.

The appellant says the parking charge does not demonstrate a genuine Pre-estimate of Loss The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-V-Beavis.

The appellant has stated the case of ParkingEye-V-Beavis has no relevance in this instance as the case concerned a customer car park, and not in a resident’s only car park. Despite the differences in circumstances, I am satisfied that the operator has a genuine interest in issuing charges for contraventions of the terms and conditions, and as agreed with the landowner there is still a legitimate requirement to ensure spaces are free for residents of the property.

As, such I am satisfied the case law of ParkingEye-V-Beavis is relevant and can be applied in this case. 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.” 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.

BiscuitMuncher

The final result is in....
BiscuitMuncher - 3
Secure-a-Space - 2

I'll post up the POPLA decisions later.

Umkomaas

While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

Rather a presumptuous statement! Who are they to determine? Perhaps they should be pinned down as to exactly where the line is? The SC said £85, not £100 - which is 17.6% higher. The current rate of inflation is 0.2%. Hardly 'in the region of...'

salmosalaris

Who cares what patsy POPLA says ?
I'd like to see a "resident parking in their own allocated bay " case in front of a proper judge.