Is the PoPLA Adjudicator wrong?

The_Deep

In a recent PoPLA decision one of the adjudicators denied an appeal inter alia for the following reason.

If the driver finds that they are unable to comply with the stated terms and conditions of the site, it is their responsibility to seek alternative parking to avoid receiving a PCN.

The driver tried to pay but none of the machines was working, surely there can be no contract.

Redx

In a recent court case on here , a judge likened it to being in a shop , taking the goods despite not having any cash or card and so not paying

I am not saying the judge was right of wrong , but it's what the judge told a defendant , effectively stating it was stealing

If a driver cannot pay at the start of a parking period , then my own opinion is , depart , because you cannot pay for a service , so do not avail yourself of the service

We had one today where a driver should have paid as they departed , but the machines were faulty and so could not pay

I would say the in that case the driver should have tried to deal with it as soon as possible , by paying after they got home etc , not just leave it until the keeper received an NTK

The difference is that the latter did not know until it was too late , but then appears to have done nothing about it

Fruitcake

I can see both sides of this. If a driver was unable to pay but decided to park anyway when they could have left, then I think the assessor would be right.
There is a grey area if the driver tried to pay but exceeded grace periods during the attempt then I think that appeal should be allowed.
If the period was say an hour though, then I think the appeal should be denied.

The problem comes when there is no option to leave and park elsewhere, for example at a hospital or railway station where there is nowhere else to park within a reasonable walking distance, or as Redx says, someone goes to pay on exit but is unable to do so.

In one court case the defendant lost, but because it wasn't their fault the machine was broken, they attempted to pay, and left a note with their personal contact details offering a late payment, the judge ordered that they only had to pay the original cost of parking, which was £3.

Forget PoPLA which has recently shown itself to be as reliable as ANPR scameras. I think this sort of thing would have to be decided by a judge on merit in each instance.

The_Slithy_Tove

What about in a shopping centre P&D car park?

Would the owner of the shopping centre and its associated car park really want all those potential visitors simply to drive off and shop elsewhere? Or would they rather forego the parking revenue while the machines are out of action in order to maintain footfall in the shopping centre?

Of course, any sensible landowner would tell the PPC not to issue (or cancel) any parking charges for that period. But often the landowner may not know the failure had occurred, or is simply washing their hands of anything to do with their car park.

ashley_cohen

One of the biggest issues is Landowners who wash their hands of the PPC's conduct, and many landowner contracts say that there is "no agency" which means that the PPC holds responsibility for their conduct, not the Landowner.

Of course, if there is no agency, then arguably, no "relevant contract" has been offered.

ALWAYS harass the landowner, it often does work even if they get so sick of you that they just tell the PPC to cancel. And remember you cannot illegally harass a limited company - you are pursuing a lawful course of conduct, just don't focus on one person.

If the Landowner is a Supermarket, a chain store or a shopping centre, demand to speak the manager (the real manager, don't be fobbed off with a "supervisor") , then the Area Manager, then the Complaints team at Head Office, then the Executive Complaints Team,and finally the CEO. Don't be scared of telling the press either.

The_Deep

IMO, if the contract is pay and display, and you cannot pay through no fault of your own, then you have not entered a contract.

ashley_cohen

The_Deep wrote: »

IMO, if the contract is pay and display, and you cannot pay through no fault of your own, then you have not entered a contract.

So if you go into Tesco, to buy Heinz Beanz, and they have no Heinz, can you just take Tesco Own Brand for free?

I understand your position but I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

Redx

The_Deep wrote: »

IMO, if the contract is pay and display, and you cannot pay through no fault of your own, then you have not entered a contract.

but if you went to ASDA, and the PDT at the till was down to pay your bill by card after the checkout assistant/cashier has checked the items through , you havent got the cash on you and the chequebook is back at home , you have no means to pay and it may be their fault because visa or access is down (it has happened)

you cannot just take the goods, which is what the judge was getting at , you would have to leave the trolley full of goods and leave without them (that is where no contract comes into it, plus frustration of contract) - hence you depart and no contract has been performed

NeilCr

ashley_cohen wrote: »

One of the biggest issues is Landowners who wash their hands of the PPC's conduct, and many landowner contracts say that there is "no agency" which means that the PPC holds responsibility for their conduct, not the Landowner.

Of course, if there is no agency, then arguably, no "relevant contract" has been offered.

ALWAYS harass the landowner, it often does work even if they get so sick of you that they just tell the PPC to cancel. And remember you cannot illegally harass a limited company - you are pursuing a lawful course of conduct, just don't focus on one person.

If the Landowner is a Supermarket, a chain store or a shopping centre, demand to speak the manager (the real manager, don't be fobbed off with a "supervisor") , then the Area Manager, then the Complaints team at Head Office, then the Executive Complaints Team,and finally the CEO. Don't be scared of telling the press either.

Well yes but

As a landowner (freeholder of an estate) I'd say start with polite but firm.. I am sure you don't mean harass from the outset but, just in case, don't wade in with any willy waving. You've got much more chance of getting it sorted in short order if the landowner/freeholder doesn't feel harangued

You can ramp it up if you aren't getting anywhere

Half_way

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

What about in a shopping centre P&D car park?

Would the owner of the shopping centre and its associated car park really want all those potential visitors simply to drive off and shop elsewhere? Or would they rather forego the parking revenue while the machines are out of action in order to maintain footfall in the shopping centre?

If someone was feeling publicly spirited, then all it would take is someone with a high vis jacket, a two way radio stood at the entrance to the car park telling people not to enter as they will be issued wth a parking charge notice of £100 due to a fault

ashley_cohen

Of course, by harass I mean make sure the Landowner knows this is not going away.

I'm not aware, yet, of any landowner being joined to the legal proceedings (apart from Duff, where he can't sue in his name anyway), but that's a potential threat as well.