We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Parking Charge Notice - Port of Wells Car Park (Wells next the sea)

fgcann001
Posts: 15 Forumite

Hi,
I'm hoping someone is able to help me here. My partner and I visited Norfolk and drove into Wells (16h April '21) but could not find a parking space in the Port of Wells Car Park. We did not exit the car, but sat in the vehicle for approx 20 mins waiting for a space to become available, it didn't - so we drove out without leaving the vehicle or parking in a space. On the 11th May '21 I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd. Via POPLA I wrote an appeal on the basis that we did not park or leave the vehicle, no spaces were available. Also, that the PCN should have been received by the 30th April '21 to fall within the 14 day period and they were well outside of this. POPLA have said that they are happy that I am the driver so liability is kept with the driver and this 14 day period is not relevant as it's only when they are pursuing the registered keeper using the protection of freedoms Act. They have ignored the fact I didn't park, but have assumed that I have indicated I am the driver of the vehicle so I'm liable as it looks like there is a contract between me and the operator as I drove into the car park and stayed there for 24 mins exactly on private land. I also challenged the £85 charge/penalty as excessive and they have said the following:
This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude that the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park by making the required payment for their stay. In this instance the appellant was required to pay £4.50 to cover the time that their vehicle was on the site. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the vehicle was on this land without a valid payment, these terms and conditions were not met. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
What should I do next - they have said that there is no further appeals allowed and I have to now pay £100 within 28 days otherwise they will issue proceedings against me to recover the amount due.
£100 for a 24 minute stay when I couldn't even park my vehicle and leave is ridiculous and so excessive. This is not an amount I can easily afford and I now feel I will not return to Wells again - particularly after reading so many comments about how they scam everyone in various ways.
Thanks.
I'm hoping someone is able to help me here. My partner and I visited Norfolk and drove into Wells (16h April '21) but could not find a parking space in the Port of Wells Car Park. We did not exit the car, but sat in the vehicle for approx 20 mins waiting for a space to become available, it didn't - so we drove out without leaving the vehicle or parking in a space. On the 11th May '21 I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd. Via POPLA I wrote an appeal on the basis that we did not park or leave the vehicle, no spaces were available. Also, that the PCN should have been received by the 30th April '21 to fall within the 14 day period and they were well outside of this. POPLA have said that they are happy that I am the driver so liability is kept with the driver and this 14 day period is not relevant as it's only when they are pursuing the registered keeper using the protection of freedoms Act. They have ignored the fact I didn't park, but have assumed that I have indicated I am the driver of the vehicle so I'm liable as it looks like there is a contract between me and the operator as I drove into the car park and stayed there for 24 mins exactly on private land. I also challenged the £85 charge/penalty as excessive and they have said the following:
This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude that the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park by making the required payment for their stay. In this instance the appellant was required to pay £4.50 to cover the time that their vehicle was on the site. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the vehicle was on this land without a valid payment, these terms and conditions were not met. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
What should I do next - they have said that there is no further appeals allowed and I have to now pay £100 within 28 days otherwise they will issue proceedings against me to recover the amount due.
£100 for a 24 minute stay when I couldn't even park my vehicle and leave is ridiculous and so excessive. This is not an amount I can easily afford and I now feel I will not return to Wells again - particularly after reading so many comments about how they scam everyone in various ways.
Thanks.
0
Comments
-
You'll need to break up that wall of text into paragraphs to make it readable please.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street1 -
There are lots of threads on here about this car park, please read them and complain to your MP.l Also read this.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html
You never know how far you can go until you go too far.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards