Civil Enforcement - PCN after buying ticket

donutty22

I believe it was based on the charge amount not being in large bold letters as with the Bevis case. Considering I had a valid ticket I find that funny, but nonetheless.

Should I post the decision here?

Coupon-mad

Both here and in POPLA DECISIONS for posterity, please!

But but but: we beg you to add ten paragraph breaks first, DON'T just copy and plonk here a wall of text from POPLA!

donutty22

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Aimee Moulton

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) due to payment not made in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a document with their grounds of appeal and evidence. In summary, their grounds are that the driver did purchase a valid ticket before leaving the car park.

The appellant says that there are different signs on different levels of the multi-storey car park, and drivers making payment upon return to the car park are set up to fail, by paying at the wrong machine. They say the signage itself is not clear, prominent or legible, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

The appellant says that the parking charge is punitive and doesn’t meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis.

The appellant says that the operator does not have landowner authority, in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In their comments, the appellant says that the operator has omitted the registrations in its payment records. They say the letter purporting to be a contract isn’t signed by the operator, and no actual contract has been produced. They say this evidence is outdated and does not include insignia, nor is it letterheaded.

The appellants documents also include photographs of a parking ticket, signage and a screenshot of a tweet from the UK Supreme Court.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal however, I will be focusing on their grounds relating to the sum of the parking charge, and insufficient notice of this being given, therefore not meeting the expectation of ParkingEye v Beavis. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists: “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 into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage, I do not consider that the charge is sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and is therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis.

The sum of the charge is stated in small text compared with the rest of the signage, and is in the middle of the small print of the terms and conditions. This does not stand out, as required, and there is nothing bringing the motorists attention to the sum. For this reason, I am not satisfied that the driver was adequately informed of the sum of the charge, and that they agreed to pay it, should they fail to comply with the terms. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly, and I must allow this appeal. I acknowledge the grounds and evidence provided by the appellant however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reason, these do not require further consideration.

Coupon-mad

Great!  I do think something has happened at POPLA to make them suddenly start taking the correct stance that £100 in small print is not OK.

POPLA never used to get that.  It's as if they've had a legal challenge or major complaint that's forced them to revisit Beavis properly for the first time in years. Very odd but better late than never.

Possibly - who knows? they might be hoping to get the contract to run the new Single Appeals Service and are trying to align themselves more with the new Code of Practice on signage, at least.