POPLA Britannia Parking - DEX MSCP Newcastle

Coupon-mad

Yes, I think signage is your main comment.

bigalogigalo

Hi All,

Thanks for your support so far with this.

I've heard back from popla. My appeal lost. I'll paste the explanation from popla below.

I've read the support info from the newbie's faq thread. It says that I should ignore further letters, unless I get issued a court summons and notify Britannia if I move address.

1) What do you make of the response from popla? What are your thoughts?
2) Just to double check, I'm leaving things and waiting for a summons. I haven't got the wrong end of the stick there have I?

Thanks again

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameAlexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist failed to validate their stay or make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that there are no protected pedestrian footpaths upon entry to the site, so when motorists enter, they must look out for cars and pedestrians. As a result, he states that the signs can go un-noticed. The appellant states that there are no signs or payment machines at all in the parking area. He believes it to be reasonable to assume that parking is free. The appellant has questioned how it is fair that motorists parking charges will increase if they appeal. The appellant has provided a document, which contains photographs of the site and the following grounds of appeal: • The appellant states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. • The appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking on private land, 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 and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. The terms and conditions of the site state: “£100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.”. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant the motorist failed to validate their stay or make a valid payment. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 20:03 and exited at 22:56 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and 53 minutes. A copy of its transaction list has also been provided, showing that the motorist did not pay for their stay. In response, the appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. 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 (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. The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site and the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the amount of parking charge to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. I do not consider the appellant’s photographs to be an accurate representation of the signage displayed throughout. If the motorist was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site or felt that they could not be met, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. Overall, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, 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 states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. 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”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise. The appellant has questioned how it is fair that motorists parking charges will increase if they appeal. Section 34.6 of the BPA Code of Practice informs parking operators that: “If prompt payment is made (defined as 14 days from the issue of the Parking Charge Notice) you must offer a reduced payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the charge. This reduction in cost must be by at least 40% of the full charge”. As a result, it is not the operator’s decision to offer a discounted amount of the PCN. As a member of the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme, the operator is obliged to offer a discounted amount. Whether or not a motorist chooses to make this payment – whether at the discount amount or not – is entirely their own decision. All motorists are offered the same opportunity to appeal against their PCN. Again, if a motorist chose not to do this, that is their own decision. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist failed to validate their stay or make a valid payment, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

bigalogigalo wrote: »

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name A R

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist failed to validate their stay or make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that there are no protected pedestrian footpaths upon entry to the site, so when motorists enter, they must look out for cars and pedestrians. As a result, he states that the signs can go un-noticed.

The appellant states that there are no signs or payment machines at all in the parking area. He believes it to be reasonable to assume that parking is free. The appellant has questioned how it is fair that motorists parking charges will increase if they appeal.

The appellant has provided a document, which contains photographs of the site and the following grounds of appeal:
• The appellant states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.
• The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority.
• The appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver.


Assessor supporting rational for decision

When parking on private land, 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 and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. The terms and conditions of the site state: “£100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.”.

The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant the motorist failed to validate their stay or make a valid payment. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 20:03 and exited at 22:56 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and 53 minutes.

A copy of its transaction list has also been provided, showing that the motorist did not pay for their stay.

In response, the appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle.

The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

(CUT - the Beavis POPLA rubbish!)

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 (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.

The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site and the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site.

Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the amount of parking charge to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park.

I do not consider the appellant’s photographs to be an accurate representation of the signage displayed throughout.

If the motorist was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site or felt that they could not be met, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator.

Overall, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, 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 states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. 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”.

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise.

The appellant has questioned how it is fair that motorists parking charges will increase if they appeal. Section 34.6 of the BPA Code of Practice informs parking operators that: “If prompt payment is made (defined as 14 days from the issue of the Parking Charge Notice) you must offer a reduced payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the charge. This reduction in cost must be by at least 40% of the full charge”. As a result, it is not the operator’s decision to offer a discounted amount of the PCN. As a member of the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme, the operator is obliged to offer a discounted amount. Whether or not a motorist chooses to make this payment – whether at the discount amount or not – is entirely their own decision.

All motorists are offered the same opportunity to appeal against their PCN. Again, if a motorist chose not to do this, that is their own decision.

Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist failed to validate their stay or make a valid payment, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

I've read the support info from the newbie's faq thread. It says that I should ignore further letters, unless I get issued a court summons and notify Britannia if I move address.

Yep. Come back when you get the likely claim, where you will get a fairer hearing than POPLA, with no CCJ risk or anything bad.

bigalogigalo

ok thanks coupon mad ill come back if that happens. thanks so much for your time and help so far