POPLA rejected

medicinema004

Dear all,
I would like any advice if available.

My wife recently parked at a car park in Carlisle which is governed by PE. She was 24 weeks pregnant then. She has been feeling unwell off and on during the days with sickness and dizziness due to low haemoglobin and pregnancy related nausea and vomiting. She paid the necessary fee for 2 hours and went to the shops. On returning she felt unwell and dizzy so sat in the car for sometime and then took a walk around to a nearby cafe to get a glass of water. She then exited the car park. She did not realise that she had gone over by 36 minutes. She then got a fine for 100 pounds from PE. We then appealed to POPLA explaining the whole situation and quoting a few other points. It has been turned down by POPLA.

Decision:Unsuccessful
Assessor Name:Adele Brophy
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to the vehicle overstaying the allowed time or by failing to purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she believes the Parking Charge is not and genuine pre estimate of loss and that she has not been allowed a grace period. The appellant has further advised that the operator has failed to provide its authorisation to act on behalf of the landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle registration ****** entering the car park at 11:06 and exiting again at 13:41 on the 10 February 2016 following a stay of 2 hours 35 minutes. The appellant states that the parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and that the signage is small and inadequate. 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. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, the signage clearly states “Parking Tariffs Apply, Tariff £1.50 per 2 hours, you can purchase additional time (if required) at the payment machines or by phone before leaving. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I am satisfied that the operator’s signage at the site meets the standards. The appellant advised that the operator failed to provide authorisation to act on behalf of the landowner. In response to this the operator has provided a witness statement, from this I am satisfied that the operator has the authority of the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided a copy of the whitelist look up this shows that the appellants vehicle registration ****** was registered for parking at 13:12 for a duration of 2 hours. The appellant also stated that the operator has not allowed a grace period. The British Parking Association Code of Practice section 13.4 states: "you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the period should be a minimum of ten minute. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle on site it is clear from this that the vehicle over stayed the allowed parking time by 35 minutes, as such this would be over the grace period. While I appreciate the appellant’s comments that she felt unwell on the day of the parking contravention. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. When parking on private land it is the appellant’s responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions of the site they are entering before deciding to park. Based on the evidence provided, a parking contract was formed by the appellant’s decision to enter the location at 13:06 and park at the location. By remaining at the site longer than the paid for time, the appellant failed to meet the terms and conditions of that parking contract. As such, I can only conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

We furnished her case report proving her pregnancy. The problem is that if she was feeling unwell and had driven out she would have been unsafe on the road. So a slightly extended grace period in this situation is reasonable.

What should we do next? I will really be grateful for any advice.

Many thanks

A

Redx

you could complain to the landowner, as you SHOULD have done already, to try to get it cancelled

otherwise, if you do not pay the fee, you risk an LBCCC and then an MCOL court case (PE issue over 25k to 30k court claims per annum

PE have 6 years to bring any court case

she did not get "fined", PE cannot issue fines as they have no authority to do so

they issued an INVOICE

salmosalaris

Write to PE
Tell them you reject POPLA's biased verdict ,won't be paying , not to refer the matter to debt collectors to artificially inflate the charge and to issue a letter before action immediately if they wish to initiate court proceedings

Ralph-y

the help you are getting will not be bettered ....

go an pay a solicitor at top rates and you still will not get better advice ....

please listen . follow ...

good luck

(not that you will need it if you accept / follow advice )

Ralph:cool:

beamerguy

I was hoping that Popla had woken up to the real world

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Dele Brophy

Must assume Dele Brophy does not read English very well.
A pointless Assessor who has not understood

Where on earth does POPLA get these people from ???

POPLA really do need to up their game or people might think they are on the PE payroll

medicinema004

Many thanks for your help.

So should I write to PE and tell them I reject POPLA's biased verdict and won't be paying. Also asking them not to refer the matter to debt collectors to artificially inflate the charge and to issue a letter before action immediately if they wish to initiate court proceedings.

Or should I write to the land owners?

I should have mentioned that the land owners have supported the PE "invoice".

Many thanks

A

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

I was hoping that Popla had woken up to the real world

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Dele Brophy

Must assume Dele Brophy does not read English very well.
A pointless Assessor who has not understood

Where on earth does POPLA get these people from ???

POPLA really do need to up their game or people might think they are on the PE payroll

It's Adele Brophy. The Angel Wings have replaced the letter A. You get it if you put a capital A after a colon - like this : A (but without the space) - like this :A

Kite2010

beamerguy wrote: »

I was hoping that Popla had woken up to the real world

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Dele Brophy

Must assume Dele Brophy does not read English very well.
A pointless Assessor who has not understood

Where on earth does POPLA get these people from ???

POPLA really do need to up their game or people might think they are on the PE payroll

The assessors come recommended by the PPCs, don't you know PE play a part in the interview process

Coupon-mad

medicinema004 wrote: »

Many thanks for your help.

So should I write to PE and tell them I reject POPLA's biased verdict and won't be paying. Also asking them not to refer the matter to debt collectors to artificially inflate the charge and to issue a letter before action immediately if they wish to initiate court proceedings.

Or should I write to the land owners?

I should have mentioned that the land owners have supported the PE "invoice".

Many thanks

A

In what way? They've said they want pregnant women penalised? I would consider a second complaint and then go to the local newspaper.