Popla appeak refused.

Kshah786

Hi all. I had a parking ticket. I was not the driver however my friend was. He borrowed my car to take his dad who has parkinsons to the hospital. He didnt pay on entrance and just dropped his father off at the hospital. He then exited the car park 20.mins later. I appealled through popla using the nhs parking principals as my main reason for appeal. However it was refused. I will post my popla appeal when i have it to hand

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameGayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and failed to pay for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant who is the keeper states that the driver had used their vehicle to take an elderly relative to an appointment and they have mentioned the NHS parking principles. They state that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant puts the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice Schedule 4 regarding landowner authority. They say that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided a full explanation as evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator 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, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “City of Coventry Health Centre”,”Public Paid Parking Car Park”,”Please enter your full, correct registration into the payment machine when purchasing a ticket” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:28 and exiting the site at 14:54 on the day of the incident. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate a search on its online systems using the appellant’s vehicle registration, confirming that no payment had been processed for the vehicle on the day in question. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant puts the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice regarding landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice states, “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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.” Further to this, section 7.3 states, “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.” The operator has provided a witness statement and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. They say that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. 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.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. 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.” The appellant has mentioned the NHS parking principles and provided more detail in their evidence. While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, when parking on private land, a parking contract is formed between the motorist and the parking operator. The parking operator is contracted to manage the car park on behalf of the landowner. The operator and the NHS are separate entities and the appellant may want to raise this as a separate issue with the relevant parties. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and the motorists failed to pay for the duration of stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Umkomaas

The POPLA decision is not binding on you. However, the next move is that of the PPC, so you should wait to see what they next do. Some are not litigious at the moment (but they do have 6 years to pursue through the courts) and they will probably resort to debt collector letters which can be ignored.

However, if it's someone like ParkingEye (highly litigious), then (provided the landowner hasn't specifically denied them the authority to pursue through the courts - and a hospital might not want a patient subjected to this) court proceedings could well follow. But wait and see, for now.

If you tell us which PPC we can refine advice based on that information.

What happened when you involved PALS in getting this sorted?

Kshah786

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle ****** and am appealing a parking charge from
Parking Eye on the following points:
1. NHS parking principles !!!8211; Frequent outpatient with Parkinson!!!8217;s Disease
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the
driver who was liable for the charge
3 . No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
1.
The driver who was driving my car at the time was dropping of their father to the surgery
for an appointment. His father has severe parkinsons disease and struggles to get in and
out of a small car that!!!8217;s why they borrowed my car as it is a 4x4 and is a lot higher so
getting his father in and out of the car was easier. It took a while to get his father out of
the car and walk him into the walk in centre. After the driver had took his father in the
walk in centre he then exited the car park. I have attached the parking principles also
below:
NHS organisations should work with their patients and staff, local authorities and public
transport providers to make sure that users can get to the site (and park if necessary) as
safely, conveniently and economically as possible.1
2. Charges should be reasonable for the area.
3. Concessions, including free or reduced charges or caps, should be available for the
following groups:
4. disabled people2
5. frequent outpatient attenders
6. visitors with relatives who are gravely ill, or carers3 of such people
7. visitors to relatives who have an extended stay in hospital, or carers3 of such people
8. carers3 of people in the above groups where appropriate
9. staff working shifts that mean public transport cannot be used
10. Other concessions, eg for volunteers or staff who car-share, should be considered
locally.
11. Priority for staff parking should be based on need, eg staff whose daily duties require
them to travel by car.4
12. Trusts should consider installing !!!8216;pay on exit!!!8217; or similar schemes so that drivers pay
only for the time that they have used. Additional charges should only be imposed
where reasonable 5and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver!!!8217;s
control (eg when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to
work beyond their scheduled shift).
13. Details of charges, concessions and additional charges should be well publicised
including at car park entrances, wherever payment is made and inside the hospital.
They should also be included on the hospital website and on patient letters and
forms, where appropriate.
14. NHS trusts should publish:
15. their parking policy
16. their implementation of the NHS car parking principles
17. financial information relating to their car parking
18. summarised complaint information on car parking and actions taken in response
19. Contracted-out car parking
20. NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car
parks on their behalf.
21. NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant
codes of practice6where applicable.
22. Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg
!!!8216;income from parking charge notices only!!!8217;.
23. Each site is different and very few will be able to provide spaces for everyone who
needs one. Since 2010, national planning policy no longer imposes maximum parking
standards on development, and no longer recommends the use of car parking
charges as a demand management measure to discourage car use. !!!8617;
24. Consideration should be given to the needs of people with temporary disabilities as
well as Blue Badge holders. !!!8617;
25. Carers are those as identified in the following:
26. (i) Care Act 2014 section 10(3)
27. (ii) Children and Families Act 2014 section 96
28. (iii) Children and Families Act 2014 section 97
29. (iv) Carers (Recognition and Services)Act 1995 !!!8617; !!!8617;2 !!!8617;3
30. Such staff might include nurses or therapists who visit patients at home. Routine
travel between hospital sites might more sensibly be managed by providing internal
transport. !!!8617;
31. !!!8216;Reasonable!!!8217; implementation of additional charges practice might include additional
charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (eg commuters),
or who persistently flout parking regulations (eg blocking entrances). A period of
grace should normally be applied before a parking charge notice is issued. !!!8617;
32. There are two trade associations: the British Parking Association and the
Independent Parking Committee. If the car park operator is a member of either, their
relevant code applies and an appeals service is available to motorists. NHS
organisations should consider imposing a requirement for contractors to be members
of such an association. !!!8617;
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who
was liable for the charge
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first
consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the
evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be
driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is
no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I
am exercising my right not to name that person.
Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I
am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission
regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA
on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a
valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be
lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies
regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper
and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper
appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case,
to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land
and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking
law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
!!!8220;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain
conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from
the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the
driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient
of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the
recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a
Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when
requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent
a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4
is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of
the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where
POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver
responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver
is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm
that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the
operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the
charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds
of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance
with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce
an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement'
or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or
'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights -
is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where
the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be
assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking
Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of
visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding
land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic
documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement
might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to
sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses,
grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA
CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement
applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the
landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner
authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a
sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the
actual landowner agreement).
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
4. The signs in this Road way are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and
there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the
driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge,
which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the
unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a
typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the
decision related to that car park and those facts only:
In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour
background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large
lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and
'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into
deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on
the charge' existed.
Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are
unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible,
being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that
placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can
drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the
action of parking and leaving the car.
It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the
POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the
parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the
signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum
of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed
that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the
Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park
where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and
understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition
the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has
raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in
letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof
as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term,
the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the
readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement
inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2!!!8221; letters
(or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a
nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3!!!8221; or even larger.''
...and the same chart is reproduced here:
''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters.
Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best
viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing
distance.''
So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on
a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car
park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the
words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front
of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to
read the terms.
Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with
expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have
been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent
with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A
reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables
above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a
parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in
far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed
in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in
writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in
plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the
persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ
106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by
them.
This judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not
the operator's case:
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the
area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and
cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being
established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into
a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a
sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were
obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat
before parking.
So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from
photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that
time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how
the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in
isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and
mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to
disprove this.
There is no evidence that this roadway is part of the purported enforcement zone, and the
operator is put to strict proof to evidence that this place, where the car was parked, is within
the site covered and authorised in the landowner contract. The appellant contends that any
such contract allows 'ticketing' in the car parks only, and for breach of contract cases only.
Even if this roadway is proved to be within the landowner-authorised site, it cannot possibly
fall within the scope of an arrangement where parking is offered under contract, nor is it a
place where there can be any 'breach of contract'.
It is perverse, and a legal impossibility, to prohibit parking in the one hand and yet pretend
that a valid 'contractual offer' to park is made and agreed, on the other hand. There can be no
case or cause of action to support a non-landholding third party operator, alleging some sort
of 'breach of contract' in what they will also describe as a no-parking area.
Consideration flowing between the parties is fundamental to a contractual charge.
If CPP are alleging that this badly-signed road was somehow an alleged 'no parking zone'
then there is no possible consideration flowing between driver and CPP, no contractual offer
or agreement is possible within any area with a purported complete prohibition on parking.
There could, theoretically, be a case for trespass/damages but the Beavis case decision in
the Supreme Court confirmed the fact that it is trite law, that ParkingEye could not have
pursued damages and only a landowner can recover such a sum under the tort of trespass:
!!!8216;!!!8217; But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis
would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in
tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of
the parking space.!!!8217;!!!8217; [...] !!!8216;!!!8217; charging overstayers £85 underpinned a business model which
enabled members of the public to park free of charge for two hours. This was fundamental
to the contractual relationship created by Mr Beavis!!!8217;s acceptance of the terms of the
notice!!!8217;!!!8217;
97. ''ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not
a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could
not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a
small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised
use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.''
Lord Mance at 190: ''Mr Beavis!!!8230; was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would
have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. By
promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr
Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce
such conditions against him in contract.''
In conclusion, POPLA as an unbiased appeals service, needs to understand that the Beavis
case (in common with other case law) has varied application and that it can - and should by
POPLA, in the interests of balance, never mind how the BPA interpret it - be used in favour of
appellants in such specifically different (no contract possible/trespass possible only)
circumstances.
I have quoted the Supreme court in my favour in this case; I am not talking about 'GPEOL' by
any stretch of the imagination, so POPLA Assessor, kindly don't wrongly apply POPLA's
embarrassing knee-jerk template, widely shown to have been used ridiculously in completely
irrelevant cases, that 'Beavis = GPEOL'. Spare me the template wall of text about that, and
please understand that I am not talking about that in my appeal - do not summarise my case
by stating it (please). The above quotes are nothing to do with that aspect.
The driver in my case, could have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but as the
Supreme Court held, that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the
parking space, a value which was zero if the operator contends this was a no parking zone.
POPLA cannot therefore make a valid, lawful finding that !!!8216;parking charge' was properly given.

Kshah786

To be honest when i spoke to the nhs parking. They said its out of there hands and to speak to the parking company. They just fobbed me off

Kshah786

Sorry. It was parking eye.

Umkomaas

Kshah786 wrote: »

Sorry. It was parking eye.

So wait and see. You'll probably get a letter from them to the effect that you've lost at POPLA so you owe them. But wait beyond that:

1. If you get a formal Letter Before Action/Claim, compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP), they are likely to be pursuing this through the county court and you need to do some research here, especially the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which tells you how to deal with a court claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

2. However, if you receive a letter from Equita (Debt Collectors) you can have a degree of confidence that PE are not intending to take this through the courts (although we never make absolute assumptions about the private parking sector!).

All should become clearer in 4-5 weeks time.

Kshah786

My friend who was driving saying this sounds too complicated and hed rather just pay the fine. He doesnt want the hassle of researching and getring ready for court etc

Umkomaas

Kshah786 wrote: »

My friend who was driving saying this sounds too complicated and hed rather just pay the fine. He doesnt want the hassle of researching and getring ready for court etc

He can pay at any time. I'd advise to wait to see whether he gets a debt collector letter or a LBA/C.

I wouldn't be chucking away £100 (how long did he have to work to earn that nett of tax?) without seeing how the land lies (risk free over the next 4-5 weeks), but that's just me. Up to him how he [STRIKE]throws away[/STRIKE] spends his money.

There's no more advice we can give on this now if he's going to cave.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Kshah786

It was a 35 pound fine. Discount has gone so its now 70

Umkomaas

£70 or £100, the advice is the same. Most charges are £100, but from time to time are lower.

The fact that this is much lower than a PE 'norm', might suggest that the landowner is a bit more discerning about what's in the contract (educated 'guess' from me) and that may be even more of a reason just to check out how the land lies over the next few weeks before doing anything too hasty.