PE/Aldi Hidden clause.

Coupon-mad

It will be 99% template twaddle. Best to host it in Dropbox if it's an email file.

bergkamp

Rules and Conditions

This site is a 1 hour 30 minute maximum free stay customer car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). There are 10 signs, placed at the entrance, exit & throughout the car park stating the terms and conditions.

Authority

ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent). It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169).
It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.

Grace Period

ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice.

Grace Period

Please be aware that there is no broad exemption rule that exempts all genuine customers from receiving a Parking Charge.

ParkingEye have individual and specific criteria agreed with each client in relation to appeals and in in this instance the appeal did not meet the criteria.

Nevertheless, this has no impact on the legal enforceability of this Parking Charge.

This last three sentences( Which they have headed 'Grace Period' ), is their response to the hidden clause appeal....
The rest of the case file is the usual blurb and 25 pages of the 10 signs. None of which mentions the specific criteria!

Coupon-mad

Say that to POPLA, keep it simple and we will see!

bergkamp

Will do.

On 5 of the pages at the bottom, they have the title of the pages as;

XX/01/2017 - Unsuccessful POPLA Unpaid Insufficient Purchase (Page 1 of 5)

There's the admission that you have to spend a certain amount....

Fruitcake

bergkamp wrote: »

Will do.

On 5 of the pages at the bottom, they have the title of the pages as;


There's the admission that you have to spend a certain amount....

Yep, and all you are asking for is, how much is that amount because it is hidden and not included in the signage therefore cannot form part of any alleged contract with a motorist, so how can parking lie prove to the world that an insufficient purchase was made?

bergkamp

POPLA Assessment

In Progress

If 'fudged' as expected, then I shall be getting Giles to deal with it...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5616452

bergkamp

POPLA Decision - Successful

But on ' no landowner authority ' !!!!!:mad:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Daniel Kelley

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that they were a genuine user of the facilities on the day in question. The appellant advises they supplied the operator with receipts as the operator allows ‘Genuine customers’ to have the Parking Charge Notice’s (PCN) cancelled. The appellant advises the signage on site does no advise customer of this secret clause. The appellant has requested to see the contract between the landowner and the operator, to see the 'discretionary criteria'. The appellant has provided examples of PCN’s that have been cancelled by the operator.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. The signage states, “Parking limited to 1 ½ hours…Failure to comply with the following will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:04 and exiting the site at 15:45. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant remained on site for a total of one hour and 41 minutes. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant remained on site for longer than permitted. The appellant in their statement has raised a number of grounds for appeal however; I will concentrate my report on landowner authority. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly.
The operator in this case has not provided me with either a contract with the landowner or a witness statement. I am therefore unable to confirm that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. As such, I cannot confirm that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Not sure whether to laugh or cry! Well done but you tried so hard to get a decision on that single point...even old POPLA managed to make a decision on 'genuine customer exemption' but not this service!

Umkomaas

Beggars belief the amount of effort they will make to dance around giving any controversial decision against the PPC.

Although it was a case of PE not including the contract in their evidence, I'd be pretty sure that the PE/Aldi contract is one of the most water-tight in PPC land.

Still a win is a win, not quite as sweet as could have been hoped for.

DoaM

Surely this was a procedural error (considering an appeal point that was not made) and OP should make a complaint to POPLA?