Popla Code Received

djn2k11

I have recently appealed my parking charge notice (template from Newbie thread used) with Britannia and they have rejected it and sent me a POPLA code.

I have followed the Newbie thread but got a bit lost regarding what to do at this point. Parking for less than an hour is free at the site I parked, but I 'failed to validate stay'. I read the signs and was under the impression I was OK for up to an hour and only needed a ticket if I was staying longer. Obviously I've misunderstood.

Am I to now put together my own appeal based on this misunderstanding, i.e. that the signs don't make the proposition clear?

Thanks in advance

Guys_Dad

If they have clear signs and permission from the landowner to operate there, then you need to show why you didn't read their t&c.

They may have made some procedural error with serving you with the Notice to Keeper and you could use that.

Your misunderstanding as such on its own will mean you will lose. And chances are you may have put your foot in it with your initial appeal if you din't follow the advice on here.

djn2k11

I followed the advice for when you get the a PCN through the post and pasted the template reply into the online appeal.

They sent me the notice seven days after the incident. Well, the letter was dated seven days, it was actually about 12/13 days when I received it.


I only stayed for about fifteen minutes, which I'm guessing is largely irrelevant.


I just think £100 fine for not validating a ticket for staying fifteen minutes (when parking up to an hour is free anyway) is hugely unfair. They have cameras tracking people coming and going so they can see how long people stay.


Just wondering if this is my strongest defence. If they're saying failure to validate a ticket is a £100, surely that's not a fair contract term?

Redx

the BEAVIS case put paid to your arguments above some 2.5 years ago, so objecting to the £100 charge wont wash as its been that way since before 2012 when POFA 2012 and the BPA CoP came into force

if they followed POFA 2012 in timescales and wording then that wont help you

my point ?

you need to win on a technicality, but may fail if all their facts are correct, good signage , landowner contract , pofa 2012 , , the more they can tick , the less you can win on

BEAVIS lost , 3 times , in 3 courts, because PE had all their bases covered

so any appeal you put forward must make them prove

LANDOWNER CONTRACT
SIGNAGE is within all parameters and lit at night if it was at night
GRACE PERIODS
BPA CoP followed
ANPR calibrated
POFA2012 followed

etc


GRACE PERIODS seem your best option

MistyZ

As above, you need to start constructing a 'kitchen sink' type POPLA appeal with all the sections Redx lists. You may well decide that Grace Periods will be the first and foremost section.

POPLA appeals are usually pretty standard and a search on here plus looking at the links in the Newbies' thread will get you up to speed. If you save sections that strike you as well-written, clear & comprehensive you can then amend them to fit the circumstances perfectly. Concentration on one section at a time is the least daunting approach. You must appeal as keeper and ensure you do not identify the driver.

Is there a store manager or overall landowner you can complain to? That is often the best & quickest way to get a PCN cancelled. Best done before submitting a POPLA appeal though, it's harder to get a landowner cancellation if POPLA find against you.

djn2k11

You mentioned the Beavis case, but what about Parking Eye vs Cargius where the judge distinguishes it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (e.g. £2); anything above that is clearly a penalty.

The_Deep

You mentioned the Beavis case, but what about Parking Eye vs Cargius where the judge distinguishes it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (e.g. £2); anything above that is clearly a penalty.

I agree with the above. I was under the impression that in Beavis v PE special circumstances applied.

PE were leasing the car park from London Land at £1,000 a week and were de facto owners of the land, and had a commercial interest, as PCNs were their only income. That the charge was a penalty to prevent abuse, and that the charge OF £85 was reasonable in the circumstances.

I am therefore puzzled as to why UTCCC arguments do not apply in OP' case, especially as local authority charges are usually considerable less, making PPCs' charges unreasonable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability

I would be quite happy to use this arguments in court and should be interested to know why misty and Red think that I am wrong.

The_Deep

Will no one give me an argument?

The_Deep

Obviously not.

Does that mean that I am total wrong, or totalling right?

Coupon-mad

Parking for less than an hour is free at the site I parked, but I 'failed to validate stay'. I read the signs and was under the impression I was OK for up to an hour and only needed a ticket if I was staying longer.

Get photos from a car distance, making it show to POPLA that the terms about 'validating' are in smaller font than 'Free for One Hour'.

I am therefore puzzled as to why UTCCC arguments do not apply

The UTCCRs were superseded in 2015 by the CRA.

But regarding this thread, the point is, the person is at POPLA stage. No point whatsoever going into your argument with POPLA as they do not want to get it.

The OP needs to show the signs make it look like it's free for an hour, no caveats.

djn2k11

I went to POPLA and they upheld the decision of the parking company for both penalty charge notices.

I have since received letters from Britannia Parking saying as POPLA has upheld the decision the two fines are now payable.

I am devastated. I stayed at the car park for 14 minutes and 17 minutes respectively on two separate occasions as I had read the sign and was under the impression up to an hour was free. It does say '1 HOUR- FREE*' then the underneath in another section in lower case it reads '*Please enter your registration to gain free ticket'.

POPLA have seen the photographic evidence supplied by Britannia and are satisfied that they see it was not misleading in any way.

My argument still is I have just seen '1 HOUR- FREE* and assumed no further action was required. I even checked the bottom of the sign and it says a penalty charge will be issues for 'failure to purchase ticket' (not for failure to obtain free ticket). The overall message of the sign is misleading in my opinion and I have genuinely taken away that my actions were right (hence me parking there without entering registration twice).

Can anyone advise me if this is worth fighting through the courts? £200 for this just seems so unfair, which makes me think something in the CRA 2015 must make this not right.