F1rst Parking PCN - Exeter University

jaran92

Oops, yeah silly typo! All corrected

Thank you very much for your help - time to see what POPLA think!

Coupon-mad

OK and submit all that as a PDF, attached under 'other'. Do not try to answer POPLA's questions.

jaran92

Hi All,

Have just received my decision - they have denied my appeal - see attached POPLA findings. I feel they haven't really addressed the fact that a NTK was never sent - Surely this isn't therefore enforceable? Confusing...

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds of causing an obstruction however, the vehicle has a parking permit for the area it was parked in and was known to other employees in the place of work and would have been moved at their request and so, to whom was it causing an obstruction and why does it warrant a £60 fine. The appellant states that there is no keeper liability as there was no compliant notice served within 56 days, the PCN placed on the vehicle was dated 4 December 2015 and no formal Notice to Keeper has been received as per PoFA 2012. The appellant states that there was inadequate signage resulting in no valid contract formed and the only notice is up a wall, away from the single light source in the car park area, this breaches the BPA Code of Practice and it does not communicate full contractual terms and conditions. The appellant states that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and there is no standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers as the operator does not own the car park.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I note that the operator has issued a notice to driver, and as such is pursuing the driver for payment of the PCN. The PCN is payable by the driver. The appellant is appealing the PCN as keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. The operator has the right to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle if payment of the PCN remains unpaid after 28 days. The operator has not sought keeper liability. The operator has issued the PCN because the appellant’s vehicle was causing an obstruction. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle on the day in question. I note that the appellant’s vehicle is parked in a yellow hatched area, behind other vehicles and not within a bay marked with solid white lines. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions by parking their vehicle. The appellant advised that the signage at the site did not comply with BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage present on site. The photographs of the entrance signs, confirm that the car park is managed and that there are more details stated in the terms and conditions. Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states “entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. The photographs that the operator has provided show the terms and conditions of the site. The signs state; “By entering you agree to comply with the following conditions: 2. Not to park in an unauthorised area 3. Not to park on yellow lines or in cross-hatched areas 4. Not to park as to cause inconvenience to others … 6. To park wholly within a marked bay” and “If you fail to comply with any of these conditions you will be issued with a £60 Parking Charge Notice”. Section 18.3 of The Code states “specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. It is notable that signage is visible in the background of the photograph of the appellant’s vehicle on the day in question. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA and consider that the signage is sufficient for motorists to read and understand the terms and conditions of parking. The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority of the landowner to issue a PCN. The operator has provided evidence confirming that it has an agreement with the landowner to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the University of Exeter. The appellant states that the charge 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.” 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. When a motorist chooses to park on private land, they are agreeing to comply with the operator’s terms and conditions. In this instance, the driver has not adhered to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator was correct to issue the PCN.

Coupon-mad

The appellant is appealing the PCN as keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. The operator has the right to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle if payment of the PCN remains unpaid after 28 days. The operator has not sought keeper liability.

Sooo...how can they hold the appellant keeper liable in law then? What 'other' law are POPLA relying upon?

Words fail me, except to tell you to complain just like the other two cases here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5362449

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5430249

Start by responding with a formal complaint to POPLA and keep it short and to the point and quote the above.

Who is the Assessor, Carly Law?

This from POPLA recently, is a very serious failing of basic training and understanding of the main law they need to understand.

Umkomaas

I note that the operator has issued a notice to driver, and as such is pursuing the driver for payment of the PCN. The PCN is payable by the driver. The appellant is appealing the PCN as keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. The operator has the right to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle if payment of the PCN remains unpaid after 28 days. The operator has not sought keeper liability.

More confused garbage from POPLA. If the operator has not sought keeper liability, then the keeper has no case to answer. The only way a keeper might have liability is if the operator is pursuing keeper liability by following every requirement of PoFA, and as an absolute minimum, issuing a compliant NtK within the prescribed timescale.

The operator has done none of this.

More for Nicola @ ISPA. This cannot be allowed to continue. I bet those PPCs who fully understand this stuff (not many I suspect) will be laughing uncontrollably.

jaran92

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the info - i'll definitely be looking to pursue this a bit further. As you say its utter garbage, they're essentially asking me to pay as keeper when I have not been transferred that liability as per the guidelines!!!

The assessor in my case was Rebecca Grimes.

I also, in my response to F1rst's evidence pack, argued that the signs she mentions citing the terms and conditions are NOT in fact on the area of land in question - and are in fact somewhere else on campus. I have never seen those signs before... I argued that the sign IN the area in question had none of this information on and only really cites you must have a permit.

Anyway, onwards and upwards!

Coupon-mad

jaran92 wrote: »

Hi Guys,
I also, in my response to F1rst's evidence pack, argued that the signs she mentions citing the terms and conditions are NOT in fact on the area of land in question - and are in fact somewhere else on campus. I have never seen those signs before... I argued that the sign IN the area in question had none of this information on and only really cites you must have a permit.

I would briefly mention that as well because the area in question is a separate car park by the sound of it so signs in other car parks (unless you pass them on the way in) are irrelevant.

But keep it short and written as a complaint. Don't expect an intelligent knowledgeable response...

ISPA complaints and DCLG complaints MUST start flooding in about this recent farce but get the POPLA complaint in first, give them a chance:

http://ispa.co.uk/contact

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government

salmosalaris

"I note that the operator has issued a notice to driver, and as such is pursuing the driver for payment of the PCN. The PCN is payable by the driver. The appellant is appealing the PCN as keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle"

This is a week early surely !
It's about time this farce was treated with the contempt it deserves .
I wouldn't bother appealing to POPLA any longer , it's quite clear what's going on

jaran92

I believe that is effectively saying that they can now chase me for the Parking Charge through POPLA as a platform to facilitate that. Majorly twisting the guidelines there.

In fact there was a link on the page with the decision that linked directly to F1rst's payment site advising me to make payment.

Hardly what i'd expect on an independent appeals website - it's like they are doing F1rst's job for them.

Coupon-mad

In fact there was a link on the page with the decision that linked directly to F1rst's payment site advising me to make payment.

That is terrible of POPLA. You do need to complain.

The law isn't just guidelines, they got it wrong - the Assessor erred in law - and they do not understand keeper liability. We can't let this lie.

jaran92 wrote: »

Hardly what i'd expect on an independent appeals website - it's like they are doing F1rst's job for them.

Agreed. Say that to ISPA.

But start with the complaint to POPLA that the Assessor has erred in law; quote the paragraph in question.