We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help popla refused my appeal!
amz123786
Posts: 31 Forumite
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Samuel Connop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that had remained longer than permitted.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage did not comply with section 28.8 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and the signage did not state when the parking time started. The appellant feels that parking charge amount is disproportionate. The appellant feels that a grace period should be applied and has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 14:53 and exiting at 16:38. From this I am satisfied the appellant had remained at the site for a total time of one hour and 44 minutes. The operator has issued the parking charge, as the appellant had exceeded the maximum stay period and therefore remained longer than permitted. The appellant has raised within their appeal that on the day in question the arrived at the site and took six to seven minutes to park. The appellant does not recall seeing any signage in the car park that explained when the parking time starts. The appellant does not believe that the signage was compliant with section 28.8 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant feels that the £70 parking charge amount is disproportionate for overstaying by 14minutes and feels that a grace period should apply as they are a genuine customer. 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 BPA Code of Practice it states that “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.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. The signage states “1 ½ hour max stay.” 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. Ultimately, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and I am satisfied that the parking charge is visible. Section 28.8 of the BPA Code of Practice applies to disabled drivers, as the appellant has not claimed they are a disabled driver, I do not need feel the need to address this ground for appeal. 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. Within section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice it 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 parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” After taking into consideration the 10 minute grace period permitted by the BPA, the appellant had still remained on site for four minutes longer than permitted. Without reasonable justification I cannot implement additional time. In this case I do not consider that the appellant has not given any reason for me to allow additional time. The operator has provided a witness statement that confirms that on the day in question they had the authority to operator on the land. As the operator has provided the witness statement, I believe this satisfied the appellant’s ground for appeal. The appellant has provided evidence of the receipt from the day in question. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant was a genuine customer, this does not exempt them from the maximum stay period. 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 acknowledge that was a genuine customer, the terms still applied. As such, I can only conclude that the operator issued the parking charge correctly.
So that is the result of my Popla appeal i do find it unfair that a 4 mins overstay(when applying 10 mins grace period) results in me paying £70! i cannot afford this at the momemnt and im not sure what to do.My husband is away in another country looking after his sick father and i am having to deal with this on my own
Ps the ticket was issued by Parking Eye.
I tried to contact Aldi which was the store where i got the ticket but they said they cannit do anything once the appeal has gone to Popla. I wish i had contacted them before and now i am stuck.
What should i do now? do i have to pay?? if anyone else has been in this situation any advice would be great!!
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Samuel Connop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that had remained longer than permitted.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage did not comply with section 28.8 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and the signage did not state when the parking time started. The appellant feels that parking charge amount is disproportionate. The appellant feels that a grace period should be applied and has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 14:53 and exiting at 16:38. From this I am satisfied the appellant had remained at the site for a total time of one hour and 44 minutes. The operator has issued the parking charge, as the appellant had exceeded the maximum stay period and therefore remained longer than permitted. The appellant has raised within their appeal that on the day in question the arrived at the site and took six to seven minutes to park. The appellant does not recall seeing any signage in the car park that explained when the parking time starts. The appellant does not believe that the signage was compliant with section 28.8 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant feels that the £70 parking charge amount is disproportionate for overstaying by 14minutes and feels that a grace period should apply as they are a genuine customer. 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 BPA Code of Practice it states that “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.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. The signage states “1 ½ hour max stay.” 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. Ultimately, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and I am satisfied that the parking charge is visible. Section 28.8 of the BPA Code of Practice applies to disabled drivers, as the appellant has not claimed they are a disabled driver, I do not need feel the need to address this ground for appeal. 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. Within section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice it 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 parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” After taking into consideration the 10 minute grace period permitted by the BPA, the appellant had still remained on site for four minutes longer than permitted. Without reasonable justification I cannot implement additional time. In this case I do not consider that the appellant has not given any reason for me to allow additional time. The operator has provided a witness statement that confirms that on the day in question they had the authority to operator on the land. As the operator has provided the witness statement, I believe this satisfied the appellant’s ground for appeal. The appellant has provided evidence of the receipt from the day in question. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant was a genuine customer, this does not exempt them from the maximum stay period. 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 acknowledge that was a genuine customer, the terms still applied. As such, I can only conclude that the operator issued the parking charge correctly.
So that is the result of my Popla appeal i do find it unfair that a 4 mins overstay(when applying 10 mins grace period) results in me paying £70! i cannot afford this at the momemnt and im not sure what to do.My husband is away in another country looking after his sick father and i am having to deal with this on my own
Ps the ticket was issued by Parking Eye.
I tried to contact Aldi which was the store where i got the ticket but they said they cannit do anything once the appeal has gone to Popla. I wish i had contacted them before and now i am stuck.
What should i do now? do i have to pay?? if anyone else has been in this situation any advice would be great!!
0
Comments
-
its not 10 mins grace period , look it up! its 10 mins on arrival and 10 mins MINIMUM on exit
as this is aldi , I don,t think they will do court , if PE write to you , mention the grace periods , that you will have located online , and tell them that will be one of your points should it get to courtSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
nobody has to pay unless a judge says so
the BPA CoP has 2 grace periods, one before the parking event of maybe up to 10 minutes and one afterwards of over 10 minutes
so 14 minutes is iwithn the grace period , despite what popla said (up to say 20 minutes in total)
but to some degree its your own fault for not pointing this out clearly
and ALDI have some responsibility as well , as landowner
personally I would argue it in court BUT in your case you need to get better help on the legal arguments, including grace periods, as you flunked it badly due to not reading clause #13 properly
I suppose you could try complaining to the LEAD ASSESSOR at popla on the grounds of GRACE PERIODS and the popla flawed argument
plus you should complain to aos@britishparking about this failure of PE to abide by the BPA CoP (a very common issue) and copy in the popla decision and what I said
why didnt you come here before you submitted the popla appeal so you could get the appeal fine tuned ?
act in haste , repent at leisure0 -
Aldi can cancel at any stage being the landowner. You need to contact customer services at head office. Look at other Aldi threads.
This is ridiculous but I don't think PE are allowed in the contract to do court. Others will know better.REVENGE IS A DISH BETTER SERVED COLD0 -
I wish i had come here first now as i assumed the grace period applied at the end of the parking period. Clearly I should have got some advice first
would anyone be able to find the relevant rule for me in relation to the grace period? i would love to try and fight this with the right information!
Is it worth contacting BPA? because this is really stressing me out!
How do i complain to the lead assessor on Popla?
I have contacted Aldi with the only number i could find that they have for customer service and i have given them an earful but they said they cannot do anything once gone to popla. It doesnt make sense because Popla doesnt make anyone pay they say whether ticket was issued correcty so im not sure why Aldi are saying they cannot do anything 0 -
13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 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.Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Thank you @pappa golf
So what is the next action i should take? contact BPA or Popla? Also it said i cannot appeal the Popla decision so what is it that i can do?
I was hoping to ignore everything altogether until PE decide to take me to court but then i thought i dont want to be paying any extra costs they claim!0 -
also popla said 10 mins grace period and this is all they took into consideration so i assumed that it was only 10 mins as they stated 0
-
how much did you spend at Aldi that day ? do you shop there often ? do you have receipts/ bank statements showing such ?
Ralph:cool:0 -
popla believed PE because you did not mention the PROPER grace periods , if you had , the PE would have bowed out
ask the BPA for clarification of that site , include your PCN number and date , point out that POPLa have failed to understand grace periods and if this gets to court , mention of breaking the BPA code of practice will be mentioned
edit:
add the txt from POPLa
" Within section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice it 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 parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” After taking into consideration the 10 minute grace period permitted by the BPA, the appellant had still remained on site for four minutes longer than permitted."
and ask if this site is exempt frtm the grace period on entrySave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
I tried to contact BPA about the grace period but it goes to voicemail saying that they are on training!
I contacted POPLA and said what you all have advised about the 2 different grace periods. he said that apparently the 2 grace periods are different and the first only apply applies when a driver enters and decides to leave but if your parked there then only the 10 mins after parking time ends is allowed.
I'm so confused now! I'm still going to try contact BPA later on and see if they can tell me anything as it's their guidelines and they should know best!
Let me know if anyone else has any further advice because I feel like I'm at that point where I just feel like paying it so I don't have to worry about it anymore 😭0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards