Parking Eye - Tower Road

Marshall86

Very frustrating. The appeal was unsuccessful.


Assessor supporting rational for decision

The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The appellant’s vehicle registration, CK66 NDJ, was captured entering the site at 10:57 and exiting at 17:16. The appellant remained at the site for a period of six hours and 18 minutes. The terms and conditions at the site state “Tariff payable at machine or by phone”. “This car park is private property, see signage in car park for terms & conditions”. “Tariffs 8am – 6pm £7.20”. There are 37 signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered. There is helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site

The operator issued a PCN to the appellant for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. The appellant states that they were the hirer of the vehicle. They state that the operator has failed to provide photographic evidence in line with Section 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They state that the signage is not prominent or clear and that there is insufficient notice of the sum being charged. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority in line with the BPA Code of Practice. They state that an insufficient grace period was offered.

I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. I further note that the appellant was a genuine visitor to the site on the date of the event. Section 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice states “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered”. However, as the site uses an ANPR system there is no requirement for parking operators to have members of staff on site; as such, there will not be any photographs of the vehicle parked at the site

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 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 (PoFA) 2012 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 operator has provided evidence to show that insufficient parking time was purchased by the appellant, on the date of the event. The operator has provided a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner. I am satisfied that this evidences the operator had the authority of the landowner to issue and pursue PCNs on 31 May 2017. Further, I am satisfied that it meets the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice under Section 7. Further, the operator has provided, to POPLA, sufficient evidence from the hire company to show that the liability of the charge has been transferred. The hire documents have the appellant’s full name, postal address and signage accepting the responsibly and liability for the vehicle. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage advertised at the car park.

When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. The operator has a facility to pay for parking using the paybyphone system, this could have been used. Failing this the appellant had an option to call the helpline offered on all of the signs at the site. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By remaining parked the appellant has accepted the terms and conditions offered but failed to adhere to them. If the appellant was is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or felt that the terms and conditions could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions offered at the site. The operator has provided evidence to show that insufficient parking time was purchased by the appellant, on the date of the event. For the time that the appellant remained at the site a payment of £7.20 was required. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.

Umkomaas

Any chance of a bit of paragraphing please. It will help us analyse the findings and advise you on how this might pan out.

You do know that this does not place any obligation on you to pay this. Only a judge can do that. PE are litigious, but not every landowner allows them to take motorists to court.

I'm finding it hard to recall any Tower Road case that has gone to court (other regulars will chip in if they recall any), so may be this one won't. But the next step will come from PE.

Redx

I find it hard to read as well, (why do people always post a great wall of text and not think to chop it into paragraphs like we were all taught at school ?) but cannot see any sign of clause #13 of the BPA CoP

namely , GRACE PERIODS, which if it were to win, is what it would win on

same applies to any court case in the future, as ivor pecheque found out in their court case

so this may well win in court, but the next move is by PE who will chase it up first

I would suggest complaining to John Gallagher , the lead adjudicator, that the appeal point on TWO GRACE PERIODS was ignored

nosferatu1001

I didnt see any response to the grace periods section.
Just a ramble about Beavis

But put it in paras. Seriously, how can we read that?

Marshall86

Sorry about that - I copied and pasted it straight from POPLA on my phone. I have now edited it to make it a little easier on the eye.

I don't understand how the grace periods part has just been ignored!

Marshall86

Redx wrote: »

I would sugegst complaining to John Gallagher , the lead adjudicator, that the appeal point on TWO GRACE PERIODS was ignored

It doesn't give me any details on how to do this. Do you happen to know how I would go about it?

Redx

neither do we, as it was your strongest point

put a procedural error complaint in to the lead adjudicator , John Gallagher

and keep that idea in your head for any future court case

you do this by either putting it in writing and posting it (obvious really)

or you email it to popla for the explicit attention of John Gallagher , Lead Adjudicator

nosferatu1001

Second the above. Clear procedural error, as an appeal point was ignored.
Additionally did you actualy receive the hire documents? If you didnt then they did NOT comply with POFA, and if they claimed they sent it to you then they lied to POPLA.

Marshall86

All I received was an email from the hire car company. The email included a pbotocopy of the document I signed with them (stating I would be liable for offences under the road traffic act); a photocopy of the PCN and an invoice for £48 for their administration fees

nosferatu1001

No, you had to receive that FROM THE PARKING COMPANY. Noone else.