Parking Eye ticket at Hartshead Moor service station

STARS

searched threads for Hartshead Moor service station POPLA's too nothing yet

STARS

emailed
hartshead.enquiry@welcomebreak.co.uk 10 days ago re complaint no reponse so emailed again today too

Redx

you are unlikely to find a popla appeal for a specific service station

try a search for MSA popla appeals and/or other threads about MSA`s , because some feature a lot more than others , but the one thing in comon is , they are all MSA`s

STARS

Hi I searched also for MSE and service stations etc thank you Redx i have submitted my appeal and await a response.

Redx

its MSA (Motorway Service Area) , not MSE

there should be plenty of threads about them as they come up on here weekly

Coupon-mad

STARS wrote: »

Hi Elysander, thank you for your post, "I am notified under paragraph 9(2)(9b) of schedule 4 of protection of freedoms act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full". so yes its included.

That's not the bit Elysander meant.

Is your PCN like the one shown in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, the 'blank space' at the bottom, version shown in a link?

STARS

UPDATE - DENIED - #fedupsopaidfine:eek:



Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked on site for longer than the permitted time allowed without purchasing parking time thereafter.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises several grounds for appeal as follows: • The signage is not prominent or clear from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself: • The signage is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice: • The charge is disproportionate, excessive and unreasonable: • There is no contract or agreement on the Parking Charge Notice (PCN): • The operator does not have landowner authority: • This charge in an unlawful penalty charge.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
As the appellant has not declared she was the driver of the vehicle and that the PCN does not show a contract or agreement. I must consider whether the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012) has been complied with. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. In PoFA 2012 it states under section 9 4(b) that the notice must be given by sending it by post, to a current address for service for the keeper, so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. Under section 9 (5) it states the relevant period for the purpose of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The operator has provided evidence of a copy of the original PCN, issued on 8 March 2017, and states that the contravention has occurred on 2 March 2017. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 I am satisfied that it is compliant with the requirements in order to transfer liability. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. The appellant states this is an unlawful penalty charge. In reference to the appellant noting the charge as a penalty charge. The operator does not issue or collect “Penalty Charges”, “fines” or “Excess Charges”. Such things are only relevant to the on street or civil enforcement area and enforced by police/traffic wardens or council civil enforcement officers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the Road Traffic Acts. This legislation is not applicable to private land. The appellant sates that the operator does not have the authority to operate on this land. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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 evidence by way of a witness statement, of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming it had the authority to issue a PCN on the day in question. I am satisfied therefore, that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The operator has supplied a site map showing the location of the 40 signs throughout the site and as such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:03 and exiting at 16:14 after a stay of three hours and 10 minutes. The terms and conditions clearly state, “Tariffs include the first 2 hours free parking. Please pay for parking at: WH Smith or Petrol Forecourts. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. I note the appellant states that not all signs are visible from every parking space. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. I am satisfied from the amount of signage on site, that the appellant did have the opportunity to read the terms and conditions before agreeing to park. The appellant states that the signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and that it is disproportionate, excessive and unreasonable. 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, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012) it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, 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. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. By remaining on site, the appellant has agreed to comply with the terms or risk the incurrence of a PCN. While I appreciate the appellant’s comments, 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. As the appellant remained on site for longer than the free time allowed, and did not purchase the required parking time thereafter, she has not complied with the terms of the site. Therefore, from the evidence provided, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Umkomaas

PE will now demand payment to them. They will very likely sue if they don't receive it.

This could so easily have been won if you'd answered some of the questions posed to you earlier (especially that raised by CM in post #17 on 25/03/17). You've appealed on GPEOL - dead in the water since Beavis in Nov 2015.

If only you'd shown us your draft, then as a minimum we'd have crafted it into a potential POPLA winner, or so heavily populated it with words that PE would follow their normal pattern and discontinue before POPLA.

Unless you're prepared to do much more work than (apparently) previously and defend this in court, it saddens me to say that paying up might be the least painful route for you now.