ParkingEye Charge - Two Saints Retail, Ormskirk

Umkomaas

4-5 weeks for a POPLA appeal result.

So I am now at the point of deciding if I should pay the £60 or appeal through POPLA.

Are you serious - pay???? It's a no brainer, appeal to POPLA using a combination of the templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky and/or copy and paste from the one above and get it cancelled by POPLA.

There is one grace period at the start of parking and a second one of a minimum of 10 minutes at the end. If this car park is a 1-hour one, then 1 hour 10 minutes falls within that grace period - a key point to be made in your POPLA appeal.

Coupon-mad

Violet1989 wrote: »

Hi, I am just wondering if you have had a response to your appeal yet? I am in the exact same situation as you were. I was parked in the same retail park, my time from entry to exit was 1hr and 10mins, and I have had my appeal direct with parking eye come back as unsuccessful. So I am now at the point of deciding if I should pay the £60 or appeal through POPLA. So just wondering if you had heard anything yet? Thanks in advance for any info here.

No idea why you are thinking about payment after reading threads on this forum!

It will help us to know if you need to start a new thread, what wasn't answered when you read the thread 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST'? That's why it is near the top and attempts to cover the basics of challenges and/or defences, to stop too many 'what do I do?' and 'do I have to pay?' threads we simply can't keep up with, despite concerted efforts here by regulars.

Please clarify in your own thread, what help you need after reading the sticky?

atwinny

After a long wait I have had information back from POPLA...


They sent me their information and evidence on Monday 10th April which was 7 attachments which I couldn't view. On the portal it said if you can't view them to let them know so I replied instantly saying I couldn't view the screenshots.
I had heard nothing back until today when I had an email to say my appeal has been unsuccessful (see their information below).


Unhappy at this decision I have rang POPLA to ask them how they have come to a decision when I have told them I can't view their evidence which they confirmed that there has been an error made. They advised I can complain about this as a procedural error has been made and their complaints team will take it on board. They wouldn't let me speak to anyone, they advised to send an email in to complain.


I firmly believe I have been unfairly treated here. They have made a decision on my appeal when I have not been able to view their evidence and they have completely ignored my comments stating that I could not see the information they uploaded.


They have told me I have got 7 days to appeal against their decision. Can those in the know please give me some advice on how to tackle this matter please?


Here is there decision:


Decision
Successful Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Linda McMillan

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site in excess of the free time allowed without purchasing the required parking time


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises several grounds for appeal as follows: • Signage is misleading and unclear: • Initial appeal to the operator was refused a matter of course without any substantive effort to reply: • Grace periods have not been properly applied: • The operator does not have landowner authority: • The photographic evidence provided by the operator has been tampered with.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 appellant has raised several grounds for appeal, and I will consider these accordingly. Signage is unclear and misleading.

The appellant also quote sections from several court cases with regard to signage and to the amount of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) stating that it is disproportionate. I have not considered these references relevant, as the precedent set in regards to parking charges has been reviewed more recently by the Supreme Court, in the case of Parking Eye-v-Beavis. For the purposes of clarity, I have explained this below with regard to signage and to the charge being disproportionate.
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. The appellant has provided images taken from Google Earth, which he states shows no entrance sign at the site in question. He also raises concerns over the orientation of the signs. However, as this is not time or date stamped, I am unable to determine when this image was taken. The operator however, has supplied details showing the location of the 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.

I am also satisfied that the signage meets the minimum standard set by the BPA. The appellant states that his Initial appeal to the operator was refused a matter of course without any substantive effort to reply. It is not our role to comment on the operator's individual process, as this has no bearing on the motorist's ability to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park nor the validity of the PCN in this respect. Any questions regarding this should be addressed to the operator directly. The appellant states that grace periods have not been properly applied. Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that operators “should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. This period is allowed so that the motorist can park, examine and understand the signage and then choose if they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of the site. Should they not wish to comply, then the motorist can leave the site without incurring a PCN. The appellant remained on site for one hour and 11 minutes, so therefore it is reasonable to assume that he accepted the terms and conditions before leaving his vehicle. The BPA Code of Practice under “Grace Periods” 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 parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes” If the motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is “reasonable” for the purposes of Section 13.2, we would consider this to be parking. The motorist is offered a free parking period of one hour.

Taking into consideration, the size of the site, the time of day, and that the appellant has offered no reason for his delay in exiting the site, I would consider this more than reasonable and class it as parking. The terms and conditions of the site state, “1 hour free stay. Tariffs apply thereafter. How to Pay: at the payment machine at any time during your stay – your full correct vehicle registration will be required” and “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a day a week”. The tariff to remain longer than the free hour is £2, and the motorist is advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:55 and exiting at 13:07 after a stay of one hour and 11 minutes. I note the appellant’s comments about the accuracy of the ANPR cameras. In terms of the technology itself, the BPA audits the ANPR systems in use by Parking Operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is 99% accurate. Therefore, I am satisfied that the photographs provided are accurate.

The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority to act on this land. Section 7.1 of the 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 supplied a witness statement that shows that it does have the authority to issue charges on this land. As such, I am satisfied that the relevant authority is in place. The appellant states that the photographic evidence has been tampered with. POPLA is of the view that all evidence submitted by both parties is supplied in good faith and is accurate, unless proven otherwise. As the appellant has not provided any evidence of tampering, then I cannot consider this as a aground for appeal. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. B

Umkomaas

Sorry can't possibly read that mega wall of text. Can you paragraph it for us. The forum is extremely busy today.

atwinny

Done

Thanks in advance. I'm mainly !!!!ed off that they've disregarded my comments saying I couldn't see their evidence but have gone ahead with the fine.

atwinny

I've also received a copy of all my appeal notes which I have as a PDF but can't upload onto here if that's any use in helping me out? Just let me know and I can forward on the email

Coupon-mad

I have rang POPLA to ask them how they have come to a decision when I have told them I can't view their evidence which they confirmed that there has been an error made. They advised I can complain about this as a procedural error has been made and their complaints team will take it on board.

So an admitted 'procedural error' by POPLA means you must ask them to allow you to see this missing evidence and be allowed a full seven days to comment - and the case must be re-heard under these circs.

You can't forward emails here, just show us a shared URL link to a scan/screenshot series, hosted in Dropbox, tinypic, etc. I think you might need 3 more posts first, before you can post a working link, if not, break it like everyone else does who is new...

atwinny

Yeah - so basically POPLA said they can cancel the payment notice if a procedural error was made. I don't think they were meant to tell me this though as the girl tried to back track as soon as she mentioned it. To me, they have made a procedural error:
I've raised my appeal and submitted it to POPLA
They've replied with their evidence and said if I can't view to to let them know
I've replied back on the portal and told them I can't see their evidence.
They've gone ahead and made my appeal unsuccessful and completely ignored the fact I've not seen their evidence.

Because of this they've given me 7 days to read over my case file and act accordingly.

I honestly feel I've got a strong case to build to get the parking notice cancelled through their error though. Just wondering what your thoughts are on this and how do you think I should proceed?

atwinny

Also I'll try and get this case file loaded up here if I can figure it out

atwinny

*ignore this post*