Parking Eye ALDI Leek - POPLA - Parking Eye have provided evidence.... what now?!

Emma-LouiseMurphy

That's great thank you

Fruitcake

Look here, Post 2011.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Use of Data from ANPR cameras.

Coupon-mad

You need to point out to POPLA that signage types:

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (there is no sign type 3) have NO MENTION of the sum of the parking charge of £70.

So every single one of those signs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 are incapable of creating any contract to pay £70. Also the machine is hidden in the store corner which their evidence proves and the signs at the 'VRN keypad' do not mention £70 risk either.

The layout plan - have you spotted there are NO SIGNS AT ALL in the centre of the car park?! State this clearly to POPLA as well. Point out that a driver can have driven in past 'sign type 1' at the entrance and parked up in the middle there, walked into the store, shopped and paid and driven away without ever having had a fair opportunity to learn about any £70 charge whatsoever because PE's own evidence shows that signs are absent in the middle runs of bays. Nothing about the parking charge or terms could have been read.

Sign types 4, 5, 6 or 7 do not appear on the site layout plan. '7' is an apparent banner shown to be at a far end (perhaps) but not on the site aerial view and in any case, like 90% of the signs there, the £70 is absent.

State that the Beavis case cited by PE is not relevant because that decision was dependent upon 'the clear wording of the notices' where the charge itself was 'prominently displayed around the car park and at the entrance' in 'large lettering'.

So, POPLA must consider whether the signage at THIS location was sufficient to bring the parking charge of £70 to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who may wish to park. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states that “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

The signs in the signs in the evidence provided do not clearly state the amount (£70) that will be charged to motorists that do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking at the location. And the site map does not match the photos (no banner sign in the aerial view) and the signs instore are too late because they are only possibly noticed AFTER parking, which is too late to form part of any contrac. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking is the well-known authority and binding appeal case in support of this matter, which is trite law and remains unchanged by the Beavis case.

Based on the evidence provided, it would be impossible to conclude that the signage in place at this location is “conspicuous” or “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice. It therefore does not meet the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in that the “wording of the notices” is not sufficiently “clear” to bring the parking charge of £70 to the attention of motorists who use this car park.

There is also the fact that is not Rachel Organ's known signature...

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/parkingeye-witness-from-aldi-rachel.html

But personally I wouldn't chuck that bit about Rachel in, it will confuse the POPLA Assessor. Attack the signs and use the words above because I copied/adapted some of the last paragraphs from a POPLA decision this week...

If that doesn't fit in the Portal (obviously you will have to remove the bits where I have written 'Then state this') then you will have to email POPLA with your comments which is fine. You have POPLA's email to reply to.

Emma-LouiseMurphy

Thank you so much for all your help everyone.

Thank you Coupon-mad.

I have responded to them now, I will let you know when i hear from them.

Thanks

Emma

Emma-LouiseMurphy

Hi everyone!

POPLA have rejected my appeal ....... Is there anything I can do now or am I going to have to pay the £70?? (which is ridiculous!)

POPLA decision as follows........

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not register the vehicle.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. She says that the parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and that the signage at the location is unclear. The appellant has raised that there is no contract with the landowner and has questioned the accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The appellant has stated that there is no keeper liability.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant says the amount charged does not represent 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.” As such, it is evident that I must consider whether the signage at the location was sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who may wish to park. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states, “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Within its response, the operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the location and a site map also which documents the signs placed around the car park in question. The signs state a parking charge of £70 will be issued to motorists that do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking at the location. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the parking charge is visible. Therefore, I can only conclude that the signs are “conspicuous” and “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice and are sufficiently “clear” in order to meet the standard outlined by the Supreme Court as referred to above. Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, 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. The operator monitors the site using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:14 and exiting at 13:47 on 17 February 2016. The appellant states that the signage at the location is inadequate. In response, the operator has stated that customers must enter the vehicle registration into the terminal to receive two hours free parking. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state, “All customers must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details using the terminal in store”. Further, the operator has provided a site map that confirms the location of the signs 13 at the site. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I also consider it clear a tariff the vehicle must be registered on the terminal in the store. The appellant has questioned the accuracy and reliability of the ANPR systems at this location. The British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by Parking Operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is 99% accurate. I accept the appellant disputes the ANPR evidence provided by the operator, however as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. The operator has provided an image of the vehicle entering the site at 13:14 and leaving the site 33 minutes later. No evidence has been provided by the appellant to disprove this claim. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing parking charges on this land. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The operator has provided POPLA with a signed witness statement, section 22.16b of the BPA Code of Practice states “Witness Statements were introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within a POPLA Evidence Pack and as such these Statements should be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent”. I am satisfied that the witness statement provided by the operator meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has stated that there is no keeper liability and she was not the driver. The operator has provided copies of the Notice to Keeper that was sent to the appellant. I am satisfied that the document shows the operator made it clear that the driver of the vehicle was required to pay the charge. As the appellant did not disclose the name of the driver, the operator must the regulations set out in section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. From the evidence, I am satisfied that liability was transferred correctly and in line with the provisions set out in PoFA (2012). As the appellant failed to provide the driver details, she is liable for the Parking Charge as the Registered Keeper. When parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions of parking set out in the signage at the site. Whilst I accept the operator has not provided evidence of how long the driver parked within a bay, the driver remained at the site for 33 minutes without registering the vehicle. On this occasion, the driver has parked without making a registering the vehicle, as such; I can only conclude that the operator issued the parking charge correctly.

Half_way

no you don't have to pay it, why did you go to aldi and ask for a receipt copy? if you can go back and tell them, aldi that is to cancel this ridiculous charge.

Umkomaas

I don't see how the penalty clause is disengaged as this isn't about an overstay (as per Beavis) it's because the OP didn't enter their VRM on the store computer. Therefore PE is applying a penalty for failing to carry out a procedure. GPEOL therefore applies.

Here we go again, not only is POPLA making the Beavis case for the operator, it is also distorting it in their favour!

What did Aldi do to bring the need to register the VRM to the OP's attention?