Car Hire popla

Dane19

Here it is in full.

The operator’s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal these are: The operator has failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The appellant has advised that the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is the driver liable for the PCN. The appellant has advised that the operator has not provided any evidence of landowner authority. The appellant has provided photographic evidence in support of their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to hirer and hire documents after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

The terms and conditions of the site are, “Saturday – Sunday All day (12am -12am) £6.00. Parking charges apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminals inside the facilities to receive 4 hours free parking. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The site operates by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The appellant’s vehicle registration number, was captured entering the site at 15:03 before exiting at 17:09, totalling a stay of two hours five minutes.

The operator issued a PCN due to either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. The appellant has advised that the operator has not provided any evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a copy of a contract confirming it held landowner authority at the time of the parking event. AS such, I am satisfied the operator has met the requirements set by the BPA. The appellant has advised that the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible 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 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 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. The operator has provided a system generated search from this I can see the appellants vehicle was not registered for parking on the date of the parking event. When parking on private land, a motorist forms a contract with the operator by parking their vehicle on the site. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage offered at the site. In this case, as the motorist has remained at the car park without making a payment for parking or registering for free parking, the terms and conditions of the contract have not been met. As such, I conclude that on this occasion the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

Coupon-mad

I can't read that without paragraphs, can you add some (we know it's POPLA's fault).

Dane19

Is that better?

I don't understand I sent site pictures and clearly it shows lack of signs and where there are signs the terms and conditions are not readable, parking eye sent generic pictures and even on them the terms and conditions are not readable.

Coupon-mad

It's because POPLA are getting very noticeably MUCH worse.

Some truly bizarre and dreadful, inconsistent and plain stupid decisions are being made this year. Some Assessors clearly don't care or just don't understand fundamental issues like 'keeper liability' or 'relevant land' or 'unclear signs'.

Who knows, maybe the BPA are not paying them enough money, now that the Private Parking CoP Act will be coming in and POPLA will end maybe next year.

Dane19

Its nearly a month and I haven’t had any letters from parkingeye demanding payments, have they forgot about me ? ��

KeithP

ParkingEye have up to six years (in England and Wales) to decide whether or not to pursue this alleged debt through the courts.

Edna_Basher

In our experience, it can take anything up to 3 months or more for ParkingEye to send a Final Notice after an unfavourable POPLA decision.

When the Final Notice does eventually arrive, you could respond along the lines of.....

Dear Sir,

Parking Charge Notice xxxxxx/xxxxxx, Vehicle Registration AA11ABC

I have received your letter dated [Date] issued as a Final Notice in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”).

Firstly, I must express my disappointment that rather than offering me the opportunity to utilise the accredited alternative dispute resolution service provided by Ombudsman Services that would have been competent to deal with this dispute, you chose instead to offer me the non-accredited service provided by the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service ("POPLA").

In noting your comment that it has been brought to my attention that my “appeal” to POPLA was unsuccessful, I must in turn bring to your attention that as a result of POPLA’s failure to follow proper procedures, its determination in favour of your company was fundamentally flawed. It is evident that there are good reasons why POPLA's service lacks accreditation and I have submitted a formal complaint to POPLA regarding the serious failures of its service.

It should be clear to you that having failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 your company has no right to claim payment of this parking charge from me in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer. Based upon the facts, it will be clear that your claim would have no realistic chance of success in the Courts. Therefore in order to reach prompt resolution of this dispute and to avoid both parties from incurring further costs, I invite you to cancel this PCN.

Should you still believe that you have a valid claim, I propose that this matter be referred to the proper, accredited alternative dispute resolution service provided by Ombudsman Services.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully etc.

In the last couple of years we have been on the receiving end of half a dozen POPLA FUBARs concerning ParkingEye Notices to Hirer and we have not yet received a Letter Before Claim for any of them. ParkingEye clearly understand how flimsy their case is.

Ralph-y

carefully follow this advice ....


you will not get better



Ralph:cool: