Parking Charge for Stopping/Waiting less than 20 seconds!

Coupon-mad

Yes, this is the latest, 'OMG' Assessment. Who was the Assessor?

I consider the entrance sign sufficient to note that the car park is managed, and therefore the driver should seek out the terms and conditions, and choose whether to accept them.

They've considered an entrance sign. But didn't you not have that entrance sign nor site map in your copy of the evidence pack and told POPLA in the comments that you did not? Did you even have the witness statement they mention as well?

You said in your comments:

Evidence pack I was sent is missing documents POPLA will need to disregard
I have compared the evidence pack they have sent me with the 'case notes' which mentions other evidence they reference in their response to you. And it appears that they have sent you additional items that they did not provide to me, namely:

1. They refer to 'the attached contract and site map' but did not include it in the evidence pack they emailed me.

2. They mention to 'please refer to the site images attached where signs circulated red for your perusal'. These images with signs circulated in red were not sent to me in the evidence pack they emailed me. I see no evidence of any photos taken at the entrance nor any pictures of any signs informing a driver how the data captured by their 'surveillance cameras' (aka mobile phone) would be used. The only site photos of signs in my pack are low down, well beneath any car window height and the sign is broken/damaged - certainly illegible from a driver's seat. A person would have to get out of the car in order to read terms and in this case a passenger saw the sign, warned the driver of this typical scam by Park Direct and the driver turned around and left without even stopping/getting out to finish reading the full terms because they did not accept them.

Therefore for these reasons, I would request that the above pieces of evidence MUST be disregarded as part of your investigation, as I have discovered that POPLA had to do in 2015 on some occasions, when a parking firm sent less evidence to an appellant than to POPLA. Not only is it very clearly unfair and sharp practice to withhold parts of the evidence POPLA have been sent, it prejudices my position.

So I would send a formal complaint email to POPLA stating that evidence that you told them and proved to them by email, was NOT in your evidence pack has been unfairly considered by POPLA when such evidence should always be disregarded, to be consistent with POPLA's approach since 2012. POPLA has to be fair to consumers and be SEEN to be fair. This is neither, when POPLA knew and saw your evicence pack differed because you emailed it to them (didn't you?). State when you emailed them your evidence pack as proof of the omissions.

If evidence packs are not the same and appellants are missing evidence, that evidence MUST be disregarded but it was not.

Also send an email of complaint to the BPA saying that Park Direct have sent you an evidence pack that did not include the same documents as they sent to POPLA (prove it with your forwarded email from PD). Tell them the evidence pack was a false instrument and contrary to the rules of POPLA/BPA CoP and as a result PD have tried to obtain a pecuniary advantage by showing POPLA evidence that should have been disregarded because it was never shown to you:

aos@britishparking.co.uk

And ask what sanctions will be imposed against PD under the circumstances. They have done this before; we've seen it in other cases.

Do not pay the charge, do not panic. POPLA is not binding on you, just puts you back in the position as if you'd never appealed really.

But do those two complaints, then after that when POPLA sell you some old rubbish, escalate the complaint about POPLA to ISPA:

nicola.mullany@ispa.co.uk

http://ispa.co.uk/about

HTH

dazster

PoPLA is dead, it's now a kangaroo court like the IAS. There is no point in advising appeals any more,

fisherjim

dazster wrote: »

PoPLA is dead, it's now a kangaroo court like the IAS. There is no point in advising appeals any more,

Looks to me like the BPA have engineered an appeals service to be in line with IAS to stop more defections!

Troy must be smirking all over his autographed photo collection of Anne Robinson!

The_Deep

My own view is that you are taking this far too seriously OP. The only thing that matters in the end is whether the PPC can win a claim in court.

No judge in the land will find for a PPC who is claiming for a 20 second stay/trespass.

backtobasix

The assssor was Robert Harrison.

But didn't you not have that entrance sign nor site map in your copy of the evidence pack and told POPLA in the comments that you did not? Did you even have the witness statement they mention as well?

No entrance sign or witness statement was provided in my evidence pack.

when POPLA knew and saw your evicence pack differed because you emailed it to them (didn't you?).

I certainly did!


I will send out the 2 complaints to POPLA and the BPA as suggested.


What will happen if I now do not pay the £100 charge within the 28 day period they have given me?

dazster

You'll get lots of letters from debt collectors which you can hang on a hook in the smallest room in the house and then put to good use. And then, most likely, nothing.

Fruitcake

You have successfully cost the PPC a lot of wasted time and effort, and over thirty quid in DVLA and PoPLA fees.
I doubt they would want to put this in front of a judge.


That's a win in my book.

Ralph-y

please consider taking the time to do to do the complaints as outlined by CM above ..........

the regulars need help right now to help sort out POPLA ....... just as people / posters did two /three years ago ..........

Ralph:cool:

salmosalaris

backtobasix wrote: »

Have received the decision on this - Unfortunately it was unsuccessful. Is there anything more that can be done?

---

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor Name XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant stopped in an area where stopping is not permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a grace period, and has not provided adequate signage to enforce a contract. The appellant also contends that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the protection of freedoms act 2012, the operator does not have the authority of the landowner to issue parking charges, and that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions in place at the site by parking their vehicle. In this case, the terms and conditions are set out on the signage on site that states, “unauthorised vehicles; strictly no stopping/waiting or parking”. The operator has provided photographic evidence which it states shows the appellant using the car park to drop off a passenger. It therefore issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

The appellants first ground of appeal is the British Parking Association (BPA) grace periods, detailed in section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice. There are two forms of grace period, the first is to allow the motorist chance to review the terms and conditions and choose whether to accept them, and the second is to allow the motorist to leave the site following a valid parking period.

The second grace period is not relevant in this case, as the operator argues that the appellant has no right to be on site. The first grace period is relevant in that the appellant should be allowed the opportunity to review the terms and conditions and choose whether to accept them. In this case, by using the car park to drop passengers off, the appellant has used the car park for its intended purpose, and is therefore seen to have accepted the terms on site. Had the appellant entered the site, not dropped anyone off, and left, then they could argue they had not accepted the terms and conditions, and left immediately.

Further to this, the appellant argues that the signage was unclear, and therefore a contract was not agreed. The appellant also states the vehicle was not parked. The photographic evidence shows that the vehicle was parked, as it would need to be to allow passenger to get out. I consider the entrance sign sufficient to not that the car park is managed, and therefore the driver should seek out the terms and conditions, and choose whether to accept them. By using the car park for its intended purpose, I consider the appellant has accepted the terms detailed. I note the appellant parked by a sign that lists the terms and conditions, and therefore I consider the terms were readily available to them.

The appellant argues that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), section 9, d, ii. I note that the parking charge is due immediately following the contravention, as the appellant is seen to have entered into a contract whereby the charge is payable if the terms and conditions are not complied with. The notice to keeper details this charge, and the charge was payable prior to the notice to keeper. I therefore consider the notice is compliant with POFA 2012.

The operator has provided a copy of the authority from the landowner to operator on site. I am satisfied with the content of this evidence for the purposes of a POPLA appeal. I note that while the appellant has stated that a witness statement would not be satisfactory to them, it is acceptable to POPLA in dealing with an appeal.

The appellant states that the parking charge has not been justified in terms of the loss to the landowner. 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

Having reviewed the evidence and the appellants grounds for appeal, I consider the appellant has used the site to drop off passengers, and therefore accepted the contract by using the car park. I therefore find the operator issued the PCN correctly.

I frankly don't know where to start with that utter hogwash . If this is the intellectual standard of assessors it is pointless appealing. How the hell can you have accepted the terms and conditions of a contract without having chance to study them simply because you used the car park for its intended purpose ?
The assessor admits the signage states "unauthorised vehicles, no stopping or waiting" and that the driver had no right to be on site so without a genuine offer of anything again there can be no valid contract by which the driver could be bound .

backtobasix

Dear POPLA,

I would like to complain about the Unsuccessful decision that was made as part of my POPLA appeal.

The basis of my complaint is that the evidence pack supplied to POPLA differed to the evidence pack supplied to me by the Parking Operator.

This was proven in the 2 emails I sent to POPLA on Friday March 4th (approx 11.45am)

I requested that the additional evidence provided to POPLA should be disregarded. My understansing is that this has been POPLA's approach since 2012.

However, it is clear in the final decision, the Assessor based much of his findings on evidence I had not been provided in my evidence pack.

I feel this is wholly unfair. POPLA has to be fair to consumers and be SEEN to be fair. This is neither, when POPLA knew and saw that my evidence pack clearly contained less evidence than what they had been provided by the parking operator.

I request that this case be looked at again. Please can you respond to me as a matter of urgency.

Yours Sincerely,




and received the following response:


Thank you for contacting POPLA.

We note you are unhappy with our decision. However, we have now reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.

Yours sincerely,

POPLA Team