Parking POPLA appeal for a parking space purchased as part of a lease

jamborta

Many thanks for the replies.

When I read this paragraph in the lease, when we bought the flat I thought this is to protect us, never thought it can be used against me (being too naive).

@fruitcake
Does the lease mention anything about the ability for the scammers to instigate court?

No, I did not find such a clause in the lease.

With whom is your contract? The lessor or the landlord? What does the landlord say about this outrageous scam?

I am the leaseholder of this flat, so the landlord. When I got this fine, I sent an email to the landlord, they suggested to appeal to POPLA.

What do the signs say? Did you include inadequate signage in your appeal?

They have signs everywhere, one of them is right next to my parking space. In fact Secure a Space in their response explicitly pointed out where the signs are. The sign is like this one (https://ibb.co/NTkZKK7).

@castle @fruitcake @neilcr
If you purchased the parking space wouldn't that make you the freeholder?

This parking space was a kind of add-on, we paid extra to buy it, so in a sense it was purchased with the flat (not sure if it is possible to sell it separately) but it was optional. There is an extra page in the lease that that shows the parking plan, that is the only indication that it is included, it is not mentioned in the land registry entry.

Is it possible to buy a car parking space with a lease? I have no idea but that could be an explanation if the car park is owned by the freeholder

I think that is correct, it is owned by the freeholder.

jamborta

Hi all,

I have just received the decision from POPLA, and my appeal was rejected. Here is their response (still I find it hard to comprehend that I need to pay parking charge for a space I bought):

"The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle, as such I am considering their liability for the PCN as the driver. The operator has provided photographic evidence of signage, which states: “CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT…Terms and Conditions whilst parking at this site you should…display the correct valid permit clearly in front windscreen…Failure to park within the above terms means you are contractually agreeing to pay a charge at the below rate…Charge £100…” The operator has provided photographic images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 10:53 on 12th June 2019. The appellant has outlined, in their grounds for appeal, that they own the parking space as part of his tenancy agreement and does have a valid permit to park at the site. The appellant has provided his tenancy agreement and parking permit to support this, as part of the case. At this point, I would like to refer the appellant to section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice regarding signage. The BPA code of practice states that operators must provide signage stating specific parking-terms, informing drivers of what the terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. The signs containing the specific parking terms must be positioned throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. In this situation, the signage clearly states that vehicles must have a valid permit displayed when parking on the site. For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the driver has parked the site with the intention to use. By the appellant remaining on the site, he has entered into a contract and has therefore accepted the terms and conditions included. Having reviewed the evidence, the photographic images show me that the vehicle was parked on the site without a valid permit, matching the description of the permit provided by the appellant, in the windscreen as instructed in the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN has been issued. I have considered the appellant’s evidence and whilst I do not dispute that he does have a permit to park at the car park, nor do I question that this is provided to him as part of their tenancy, this evidence does not support that they complied with the parking terms on the date in question. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they have complied with the terms and conditions for their stay. In this case, by the appellant did not provide a valid permit upon parking at the site, they have accepted the potential consequence of receiving a PCN. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal."

Ralph-y

may I please ask what the wording was for your popla appeal ?


Ralph:cool:

jamborta

I said that I had a valid parking permit to park at the space, as it was included as part of the purchase to my home therefore, I had the right to park on the car park. I provided photographic evidence of the permit and tenancy agreement to show I had an allocated car park, in support of the appeal.

Ralph-y

was that the full appeal?


Ralph:cool:

jamborta

yes. secure-a-space covered all the other angles (ie sign not visible), people suggested.

Le_Kirk

POPLA appeals are not binding upon you, therefore just wait for LoC/LBC/LBA/LBCC and real court papers. In the meantime read up own some "own space" defences in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2.

Guys_Dad

WE have advised on here that the wording in a lease is paramount and if it make no reference to any parking regime, it can't be forced subsequently.

However, and as I wrote in post#2, your lease has certain contractual terms relating to displaying a permit and enforced payment. This seems, on the face of it, to render you liable to pay and would be very arguable (for the PPC) in court, unless you can get the landowner to intervene more than they appear to want to.

jamborta

Guys Dad, thanks, that's what I thought.

Coupon-mad

I would never have bought that space, which means you have paid for the right to be fined & sued whenever there is an 'e' or 'y' in the month or day (i.e. anytime) and whenever the scammers fancy thinking up a new excuse, or if you change your vehicle, or let a friend park there, or have a courtesy car, or if the permit slips, etc.

You could sue your solicitor for allowing it. That clause does not protect you. It is worse than awful and the space is blighted by a scammer.

Not saying to pay the scammers of course, this is still defendable in court. POPLA are not legally trained and their decisions mean nowt.

No paying Secure a Space.

Move home.