Successful POPLA appeal vs Carflow - 60 minutes free parking exceeded

MattHR

This is a very happy report of a successful appeal.
To anybody wondering whether they can be bothered with the appeal process and figuring they might earn enough money in the time they spend reading the various posts and crafting their appeal, believe me that IT IS WORTH IT! If not for the money, then for the 'F*** you' feeling when you win and for not feeling utterly screwed over as you would had you coughed up.

I've paid many parking tickets in the past, always because I've known that I was in the wrong, to varying degrees, and because the penalty wasn't disproportionate. Now I know how to appeal, I'd have contested several others. But this particular case was so unfair that I couldn't bear to pay.

The infraction: My wife parked my car at St Peter's Court car park in Chalfont St Peter. It's clearly signposted by CarFlow Ltd that there is a 60-minute limit, and she ultimately left 76 minutes after entering the premises. It was a Sunday afternoon and the car park was mostly empty.

For the extra 16 minutes they were charging me a penalty of £100.

Thanks to prjohnsonnn10 for help with my appeal, and to others who contribute so much on this forum. In the following posts I'll list the correspondence I went through in case others want to make use of it.

MattHR

Stage 1: appeal to operator: CarFlow Limited
Submitted via online interface, using material from the main newbies thread


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. xxxxxxxxxx

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

MattHR

Stage 2: received rejection from operator by email
Thank you for getting in touch with Carflow.

This car park is private land and Carflow has been engaged by the landowner to prevent unauthorised parking. This system has been put in place for the benefit of car park users to ensure parking spaces are always available.

You have questioned the visibility of our parking signs. Carflow have erected 20 signs in St. Peter's Court. We have attached a map detailing the location of these signs in the Site Appendix for your convenience. 18 rules signs and 2 entrance signs, which are clearly visible around the site, were erected in January and February 2016 to notify motorists of the change of the maximum permitted stay time from 120 minutes to 60 minutes. The purpose of the entrance sign is to notify motorists that the site is private land, has a maximum stay time of 60 minutes and to invite motorists to check the rules signs around the car park for further details. Our signage design and text complies with all requirements of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. This has been confirmed by the British Parking Association. The Code of Practice states that signs should be 450mm x 450mm - our signs are 33% larger at 600mm x 450mm. St. Peter's Court is private land and motorists should not assume that parking is free or otherwise before consulting the signs. Our signs are sufficiently visible during the day and at night should motorists wish to read them.

You have stated "There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge."

Your details were provided to us by the DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicleon the date of the event. If these details have changed, it is your legal responsibility to inform the DVLA. Parking on private land is governed by the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), which introduced keeper liability for parking charges incurred on private land. If you are the keeper of a vehicle that has contravened the terms and conditions of a site that is under our management, and the driver of the vehicle is unwilling to pay, ultimately it is your responsibility to pay the parking charge.

In accordance with paragraph 9.2 (b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. As you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address (“address for service”), you have been sent the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). If you were not driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, you should tell us the name and address for service of the driver and pass this notice to them. We will then pursue the driver for the charge.

Please be advised that if after 29 days from the date of issue the parking charge has not been paid in full, and we do not know both the name and address for service of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, subject to Carflow complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. Should you provide an incorrect address or identify someone who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for any unpaid PCN amount.

You have further stated "I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days.".

Section 10 of the Data Protection Act states that an individual has a right to object to processing only if it causes unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. However Section 10 (2) states that this does not apply if any one of the following four conditions from Schedule 2 of the the Data Protection Act are present:

1 The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2 The processing is necessary—

(a)for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b)for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3 The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4 The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

As at least two of these conditions have been met, Carflow strongly believe that the Section 10 data subject notice is unjustified and we do not intend to comply with it.

By entering and parking on this privately owned land, the driver entered into a contract with Carflow Limited and agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions, which are clearly displayed on the signs at the entrance and throughout the site. As the vehicle was parked for a period longer than the 60 minutes permitted, we have no option but to reject your appeal. We understand your frustration but as we have said, the restrictions have been put in place for the benefit of car park users and are in operation 24 / 7.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. If you feel you have not been given a fair decision from Carflow you have the right to appeal to POPLA, the independent appeals service (see attached form). Your POPLA appeal code is xxxxxxxxxx. You must appeal to POPLA within 28 days of this rejection notice. The quickest and easiest way to submit your appeal to POPLA is online at xxx.popla.co.uk. If you appeal to POPLA, you will lose the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate.

As a gesture of goodwill we are willing to extend the discounted payment period by 14 days from the date of this correspondence. Therefore, payment can still be made at the discounted rate of £60 until 03-Jan-18. This parking charge must be paid within 28 days (by 17-Jan-18). If payment is delayed beyond 17-Jan-18, an administrative charge may be added for late payment and debt recovery or court action may be taken. Additional costs may also be incurred as a result of debt recovery or court action.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (xxx.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

Payment Information
Carflow accepts payment by cheque and all major UK credit and debit cards including Visa, Visa Debit, Mastercard and Maestro. A processing fee of £2.50 will be applied to card payments. We do not accept American Express.

Via the Internet
Please visit xxx.carflow.co.uk/pay-pcn and follow the instructions on screen. An e-mail receipt will be provided once payment has been made.

By Telephone
Please phone 0845 544 2541 and follow the instructions. Calls will be charged at the local rate. An option to have an SMS receipt provided is available once payment has been made.

By Post
To pay by post, please make a cheque or postal order payable to Carflow Limited for the correct amount and send it to the following address, quoting your PCN reference on the back:
Carflow Limited, P.O. Box 70235, London E8 9FQ.
If you are paying by post, the letter must be postmarked before the date the charge is due to be paid to avoid additional fees for late payment.

Kind Regards,

Carflow Appeals Team

MattHR

Stage 3: the time-consuming bit.
I trawled the MSE website finding appeals that were for circumstances that matched mine.
I wasted a lot of time looking at the GPEOL appeals (genuine pre-estimate of loss), which used to be highly successful and remain prominent on the MSE forum when you search for successful POPLA appeals. In the end, I included it anyway even though I knew the law wouldn't sympathise. This was mainly because it was the scale of the parking ticket that annoyed me the most, and this is the only line of argument that seems to challenge it.

But my main point of challenge was the grace period that should be allowed.

I submitted the below as a pdf attachment in order to avoid the 2000 character limit.

Re: CarFlow parking charge notice xxxxxxxxxx

POPLA ref: xxxxxxxxxx
Site: St Peter’s Court car park, SL9 9QQ
PCN issue date: x December 2017
Registration number: xxxx xxx

I am the usual keeper and I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds:
1. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3. The charge is punitive and out of proportion with the 16-minute infraction
4. No receipt of notice to keeper

1. Grace period
The charge that was levied is unreasonable for overstaying in the car park by 16 minutes. Carflow state that the vehicle stated above entered the premises at 14:xx:xx and departed at 15:xx:xx, and have levied a fine of £100.
The driver was accompanied by two small children – one aged 2 and the other 6. It is very difficult to organise them, particularly in December when coats and gloves need to be put on etc. and the time from which the car was parked and vacated was far later than the time my car entered the premises. There was no signage that states that the clock is ticking from the moment your car enters the site.
There was no ticketing system or automatic sign to show the time by which my car had to leave the premises. At Blizzards car park in Chalfont St Giles users must take a ticket for their free 60 minutes and this displays the time of expiry. At some supermarkets the time you must leave by flashes up when you enter. At St Peter’s Court car park in Chalfont St Peter there are only signs saying “60 minutes max stay” with no indication as to whether that means 60 minutes from when you entered the premises or from when you left your vehicle. Underneath it does say “Parking limited to 2 hours” [MY ERROR] and I would interpret that as meaning from when you actually parked and left, in which case a grace period needs to be applied.
British Parking Association code of practice (BPA CoP) states:
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 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.
Upon returning to the car with two small children, the majority of spaces in the car park were vacant. The car’s occupation of the space was no impediment whatsoever to any other users of the car park, and this led the owner to prioritise safe and comfortable loading of children rather than hurrying to leave to avoid inconveniencing others. The driver would have been ready to give up the space to anybody who would have needed it, but there were ample other spaces.
As per 13.4 above, Carflow need to state what reasonable period they permit a driver to leave the premises after the 60-minute “contract” is over. I contend that the grace period needed to find a space, park, read the signs, and unload children, plus the time taken to load children back into the car and drive out, must amount to more than the 16 minutes that my car overstayed its welcome.
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’:

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket” he explains.
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes’ observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors (e.g. Christmas shopper queues) and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.”
The POPLA annual report 2016 states:

“In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end
of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.”
Grace periods are not even mentioned on the signs at St Peter’s Court Car Park and the signs do seem to indicate that the period of parking begins when the vehicle is parked. So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of how long my car was actually parked for, and for them to state their policy on grace periods and how these are communicated.

2. Lack of standing/authority from landowner
CarFlow has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put CarFlow to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). CarFlow have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that CarFlow are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
I require CarFlow to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this, it will not be sufficient for Smart Parking merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

3. No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss.
The car park had the majority of its spaces vacant during the period beginning 60 minutes after my car had entered the premises. My car was not preventing any other users of the shops and facilities from parking and the fee of £100 is a penalty rather than any attempt to recoup losses caused by my car’s extended presence. The charge for a breach of contract must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of losses caused.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.
On the day in question there was neither damage nor obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged) and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.
The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can neither be or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss.

4. No receipt of Notice To Keeper
The first I heard of the alleged infraction of the terms & conditions was when I received a reminder bearing the date 14 December 2017. I never received the initial parking charge notice to keeper that is referred to as having been issued on x December 2017 and would like CarFlow to prove that they sent this.

I appreciate you taking the above into account during your objective considered assessment.

MattHR

Stage 4: evidence from operator
I received this email from POPLA. I was on holiday and only scraped inside the 7 day limit. I'm not sure what would have happened had I missed it:
Your parking charge appeal against Carflow Ltd.

Carflow Ltd has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Carflow Ltd.

Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment.

If you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Carflow Ltd such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

The evidence from Carflow
It was a pdf which I can't convert to text, but write to me if you'd like a copy
1. Grace period
They claimed that they do adhere to the grace period after parking, which has to be at least 10 minutes, but didn't state what it was. They claimed that 16 minutes was well in excess of the time allowed.
They quoted another case (POPLA 0833037012 - I couldn't find any details) as an example where mitigating circumstances weren't enough to support a successful appeal.
They pointed out my error about saying that the sign was for 2 hours
At they stated that the BPA don't require car park signs to mention a grace period

2: landowner authority
They gave aheap of evidence and attached some redacted contracts

3: GPEOL
They quoted extensively from Parking Eye vs Beavis. I understand that this is the case that stopped GPEOL from being a valid means of appeal

4. No receipt of NTK
They provided evidence. Date they showed that mail had been submitted into royal mail system PRECEDED claimed date of PCN issue

MattHR

Stage 5: my comments on operator evidence
As I said, I only just got this in on time. The 2000 character limit was very restrictive and I had to delete all my comments on points 2 and 3 to make the others fit.

1: Grace Period
I asked carflow to state what reasonable period they permit a driver to leave the premises after the 60 minute contract. They acknowledge the code of practice that cites the minimum grace period and claim they adhere to it, but still do not state their own policy.
They state that my car stayed for 76 minutes and that this was well in excess of the 60-minute limit, but offer no proof of how long it was actually parked for, as I requested. Between the time taken to park, to read signs and understand the contract a motorist is entering into with CarFlow limited, and their unstated grace period for exiting the car park which must be at least 10 minutes, the 76 minutes that my car was within the premises becomes less than 60 minutes of parking.
I did make a mistake when I cited the sign as referring to 2 hours. I know the limit is 60 minutes and mentioned this 4 times in my appeal and showed a photograph of it. It was just a mistake and I wasn’t trying to mislead you.
Carflow have not responded to the lack of means of establishing when the free 60 minutes of parking begin and expire. They also cite an appeal that centred on mitigating circumstances but was rejected. I can’t find any details of that appeal so don’t know how similar the circumstances are, but the POPLA annual report for 2017 shows an expectation that parking operators would take mitigating circumstances into reasonable account. By not allowing a stated grace period carflow are not meeting POPLA’s expectations.
4: No receipt of NTK
Could they be falsifying correspondence in order to conceal that they didn’t issue the NTK? The Imail data on p15 appears to show that the first letter was sent on 5 Dec. However the correspondence that I DID receive (the two reminders shown accurately on p8-11) show a PCN issue date of 7 Dec
Therefore CarFlow are simultaneously claiming that the letter on p6-7, which I never received, was sent on 5th Dec to inform me of a PCN that had not been issued at that time.

This is what I had prepared to write for points 2 and 3, but didn't submit it due to the character limit:
2. Lack of standing/authority from Landowner
The evidence that carflow submit is heavily redacted and does not support their assertions

3. Punitive charge that is out of proportion with the 16 minute infraction
CarFlow cite POPLA case 0832517001 and assert that they won it. Details are not available to me online but the quoted text refers to a contest between “Parking Eye” and Beavis. The adjudicator emphasises the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. This reinforces my earlier point that CarFlow must allow motorists time to be on the premises before they park in order to knowingly enter into the contract, in addition to the grace period after parking of at least 10 minutes, which they claim they adhere to. This adds up to 16 minutes.
The quoted text from the Beavis case refers to the use of the particular car park being taken into account. St Peters Court was mostly empty at the time of the infraction.

MattHR

Stage 6: result!
I received this at 10am , having submitted the comments at 10pm the night before. I'm not sure what effect my comments had, but I suspect that I'd already won anyway because the decision came so fast. I felt mighty pleased!

(Skip to the end for the interesting bit)
DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameChris Markey
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator alleges the motorist has overstayed the 60 minute maximum free stay period.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: • the minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator; • no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice; • the charge is punitive and out of proportion with the 16-minute infraction; and • no receipt of notice to keeper.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am unsure of the driver and will therefore consider Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The terms and conditions at the site state “Private car park… 60 Minutes max stay… Parking limited to 60 minutes. No return within 2 hours… Customer only car park… Failure to comply will result in a parking charge of £100”. In this instance the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist has overstayed the 60 minute maximum free stay period. The operator has provided copies of its signage. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle VRM xxxxxxxx entering the site at 14:xx:xx and departing at 15:xx:xx a total duration one hour and 16 minutes. The parking operator has issued a PCN to the registered keeper and the appellant has raised an appeal. I note that when the parking operator requested the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle, the DVLA returned the details the appellant is acting on behalf of. As such, I believe that the parking operator was correct to issue the PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle given the DVLA named her as the registered keeper at the time.

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: • the minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator; • no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice; • the charge is punitive and out of proportion with the 16-minute infraction; and • no receipt of notice to keeper.

[guff about signage] Though I acknowledge that the appellant has not specifically raised concerns with the signs on site, I find it important to consider if the signage on site is in line with the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, section 18. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park.

The appellant states that the operator has no evidence of how long the vehicle was parked. For the period that the vehicle remained on site, the appellant was gaining utility from the operator in using the facilities provided, regardless of whether they considered themselves to be parked.

The appellant states the operator did not allow for the minimum grace period. The driver on the day in question had two small children with them and needed to ensure they were safely placed in the vehicle and then had to exit the car park. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 13 refers to Grace periods. Section 13.2 states: “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.” I acknowledge the appellant has remained on site for 16 minutes in excess of the maximum stay of 60 minutes. Taking the Grace Period outlined above I consider the appellant has left the car park within a reasonable timeframe following the end of the contract and therefore I must allow this appeal. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other comments or grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

ratechaser

Congratulations and well done. Completely agree that the "f... you" feeling is definitely a guilty pleasure that can keep you going through all this.

Worth reiterating your point though (for anyone else looking at this as a potential template appeal) that GPEOL is dead and buried post-Beavis, and that there's a real risk that having it in a POPLA appeal as even one of several appeal points can end up in a rejection from one of their less competent assessors. Fortunately you got away with it because of the focus on grace periods.

MattHR

Thanks mate!
I hadn't realised that GPEOL could have impaired my chances of success - wouldn't have put it in had I known. I knew its chances of success were low-to-nil but had also read that appealing on a single point rarely works, so included it. Plus it soothed my anger a bit.
On the POPLA outcome thread someone has just written that I was lucky - people sometimes lose their appeal when they have overstayed by a shorter period than 16 minutes. So I guess that means that if anyone is thinking of using part of this as template appeal then make sure you add your own story about why extra time was needed before and after parking.

Coupon-mad

On the POPLA outcome thread someone has just written that I was lucky - people sometimes lose their appeal when they have overstayed by a shorter period than 16 minutes. So I guess that means that if anyone is thinking of using part of this as template appeal then make sure you add your own story about why extra time was needed before and after parking.

Agreed, the story of why it took longer than 10 minutes, give the facts of the car park, is vital.

Well done!

Ian011

MattHR wrote: »

By Telephone
Please phone 0845 544 2541 and follow the instructions. Calls will be charged at the local rate.

Since 13 June 2014 it has been illegal to offer a premium rate 084, 087 or 09 number for this. This can be reported to the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline for escalation to Trading Standards.

Calls to 0845 numbers haven't been charged at "local rate" since 2004. Both Ofcom and ASA issued a note about this in 2005. These are premium rate numbers. Add this to your complaint.