Complaining to the land-owner

George_Adye

Sure, here it is:

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Rebecca Etim
Assessor summary of operator case
A Parking Charge Notice was issued as the driver parked in a disabled bay without displaying a blue badge.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has disputed the signage at the location and advised it does not meet the requirements. They have disputed the operator having authority from the landowner and the appellant has disputed the charge being a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
It is important to note in this case, when submitting an appeal to the parking operator the driver identified themselves. As such, I am satisfied the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) does not need any further consideration. The operator has provided photographs of signage at the location, which outlines the terms and conditions to state, “Blue Badge Holders Only Please be aware vehicles failing to display a valid Blue Badge will be issued with a £60 Parking Charge Notice” Photographs have been provided which show the appellant’s vehicle was parked within a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge. Within the appellants response they have raised numerous grounds of appeal. As such, I must address each of these individually to determine whether the parking charge has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site, and any relevant codes of practice or legislation. The appellant has disputed the operator having authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. The appellant has also raised grounds of appeal on the basis that signage was not clear enough to bring the terms and conditions of the site to a motorist attention. The appellant has provided their own photographs of signage at the site. Having reviewed the photographs provided by the operator along with a copy of the site plan, I am satisfied that the signage including entrance signs meets the requirements laid out within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Further, I would consider the signage sufficient to bring the terms and conditions of the site to a motorist attention. Furthermore, I note the appellant has questioned the validity of the charge. 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 outlined above, I have already considered the suitability of the signage and the location and I am satisfied that it meets the minimum standards as set out within Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and the charge is outlined on the signage installed at the location. 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. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of a motorist to ensure when parking at a site they comply with the terms and conditions of it. In this case by parking in a disabled bay and not displaying a valid blue badge, the appellant has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the parking contract. As such, I am only able to conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Coupon-mad

and the appellant has disputed the charge being a genuine pre estimate of loss

No you didn't, you showed how the case could be distinguished from Beavis. POPLA are hopeless with that, they do not get it at all. It is a shame you identified the driver, which is why it was lost. Next time, appeal correctly!

Decision broken into paragraphs for ease of reading:

Assessor supporting rational for decision
It is important to note in this case, when submitting an appeal to the parking operator the driver identified themselves. As such, I am satisfied the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) does not need any further consideration.

The operator has provided photographs of signage at the location, which outlines the terms and conditions to state, “Blue Badge Holders Only Please be aware vehicles failing to display a valid Blue Badge will be issued with a £60 Parking Charge Notice” Photographs have been provided which show the appellant’s vehicle was parked within a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge.

Within the appellants response they have raised numerous grounds of appeal. As such, I must address each of these individually to determine whether the parking charge has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site, and any relevant codes of practice or legislation.

The appellant has disputed the operator having authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7.

The appellant has also raised grounds of appeal on the basis that signage was not clear enough to bring the terms and conditions of the site to a motorist attention. The appellant has provided their own photographs of signage at the site. Having reviewed the photographs provided by the operator along with a copy of the site plan, I am satisfied that the signage including entrance signs meets the requirements laid out within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Further, I would consider the signage sufficient to bring the terms and conditions of the site to a motorist attention.

Furthermore, I note the appellant has questioned the validity of the charge. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis...

...cue the standard crap about the Beavis case that POPLA roll out because they don't understand the difference compared to other cases with other facts...

Having [STRIKE]considered the decision of the Supreme Court[/STRIKE] rolled out the usual Beavis paragraph pre-written for POPLA because we can't get our heads round any different facts and it is easiest to wrongly assume that is applies to all parking charge cases (like our paymasters the BPA allegedly told us it did), I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

In this case by parking in a disabled bay and not displaying a valid blue badge, the appellant has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the parking contract. As such, I am only able to conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Bad luck, it won't be paid anyway...so POPLA has wasted time...