Car Parking Partnership Fine advice.

young077

Good morning all,

Please could someone offer advice on how to approach the POPLA appeal against my parking fine? Below is what I sent to them which explains the circumstances of why I couldn't pay (and in my opinion barely even parked):

I entered the car park at 0830hrs on 03 Jan 23 after parking, I walked across to the pay machines to find a queue of people as there was only one machine working at the time the other was out of service. When I finally got to the front of the queue, I tried paying 3 or 4 times via contactless on my phone, this did not work. I did not have cash or my bank card with me to pay by other means. I then made two attempts to pay via the telephone number 0330 400 7275, the first call I required a pin reset. When I finally got on to my account the vehicle registered was ******(redacted for privacy but was another vehicle to the one I was driving that day), I made attempts via voice and telephone keypad to change to the vehicle I was driving but this was only recognising a partial plate before failing.

As I was unable to pay for parking at your site I left and went to the carpark adjacent/next door Q-Park Royal Liverpool Hospital, Epworth Street, Liverpool L6 1LY where I was able to pay via my phone as I'd attempted at your site but the machine didn't seem to register that I had been holding my phone against the contactless reader.

All of this took the 16 minutes I was there, I never actually stepped foot outside of the car park until I drove back out to park elsewhere.

Please find attached the following images:

1.       A photograph showing the out of service notice on the ticket machine which explains why it took several minutes to get to the front of the queue to attempt payment. The time is later than I was in the carpark as I was unable to take this until I had parked at the other venue due to there being people waiting to use the machine after I had failed to pay via telephone.

2.       A screenshot of my call log calling the 0330 400 7275 all of which took about 7 minutes.

3.       A photograph to show 0330 400 7275 is the number provided at your site.

4.       A screenshot of the new pin sent via text, which caused further delay.

5.       A screenshot of my banking app showing parking paid for at Q-Park Royal Liverpool Hospital, the date shows as the next day due to the time the time it takes to show on the account after paying, to prove I still had to park in the area as I couldn’t carry out successful payment at your site.

I have been identified as the driver by my employer who is the registered keeper of the vehicle. Below original fine letter and the rejected appeal letter. Any advice on how to approach appealing the fine with POPLA would be greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

POPLA will like that evidence so I don't think you have much to worry about. Just create a word doc with all of that wording (change it from 'you' to 'the operator' of course because this stage is addressed to POPLA not the PPC).  Include the evidence images embedded (so you only upload one document.

Add as a separate appeal point the standard 'no landowner authority' appeal point you saw in the third post of the NEWBIES thread that's all about POPLA and which box to tick.

young077

Thanks. Really appreciate the help I will do as you recommended.

young077

So I submitted my appeal based on the comments of @Coupon-mad. I have now received a request for comments on the evidence provided by the operator. Also how do I share the document as I have tried cutting and pasting put most of it doesn't show. Is there a way to share the word document?

.

Coupon-mad

We don't need to see it.  Not all of it, please.

Show us a pic of a page if it's relevant.

We need to just hear from you what issues you have spotted yourself about their evidence pack, and see what you have drafted to put in now (as per the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread that tells you about what to look for and comment on).

young077

Coupon-mad said:

We don't need to see it.  Not all of it, please.

Show us a pic of a page if it's relevant.

We need to just hear from you what issues you have spotted yourself about their evidence pack, and see what you have drafted to put in now (as per the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread that tells you about what to look for and comment on).

I have taken this advice on board and looed through the newbies advice again and re-read the evidence pack a few times. I have noted the following:

1. Car Parking Partnership state in the rules and conditions that there are 2 paid parking machines, however there was only one on the day of the incident as one was out of service as shown in photograph previously provided as evidence. 
2. A grace period is discussed but Car Parking Partnership never say what amount of time they are providing they mention 5 minute and 10 minutes as minimums being stated in codes of practice, what amount of time do they give? If we assume it is 10 minutes allowed with 2 working machines then surely they should double this allowed time when 1 machine is out of service meaning I did not stay for an unreasonable amount of time given that I left the car park after 16 minutes?
3. Car Parking Partnership provided photographs and examples of their signage but none of it is clear enough to read the small print, does it mention in here how long the grace period is so I could be aware that 16 minutes would be too long? I had difficulty parking and while I admit I took 16 minutes to realise that I was going to be unable to pay and left I assumed this was reasonable as I took every step afforded to me to try and pay to park at this site and drove out without walking no further than the pay machines.
4. Car Parking Partnership state that I have stated that I do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. Car Parking Partnership then talk about case law in regards to £85 being reasonable but they do not give a break down of pre-estimation of loss to show how £100 is a reasonable amount.
   
5. Car Parking Partnership provided a signed agreement with the landowner dated 6/8/19. There is date included to show how long this agreement lasts?
   

Below what I have deemed relevant from their evidence, please let me know if there is anything else I could include or anything else to add? They have listed the payments taken in the time I was in the car park can this be used to show that with one machine the machine not taken my payment by phone would have taken time and also been difficult given that there was a queue behind me?

Rules and Conditions

This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

 

All available payment options can be found within the enclosed signage. The full, correct vehicle registration must be inputted when parking payments are made.

 

Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:

 

Payment Options: Paid Parking Machines & PayByPhone

Number of Paid Parking Machines: 2

 

Authority

We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

 

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

 

Additional Information

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice.

 

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;

 

"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."

 

“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"

 

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

 

We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the BPA code of practice.

 

The BPA Code of Practice Version 8 – January 2020 has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods. Version 8, 13.1 states that parking operators must provide motorists a ‘consideration period’ before entering into the parking contract to allow motorists to consider the terms of the parking contract and leave the car park should they not wish to be bound by the terms & conditions. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on the size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. Once this time is overstayed the motorist is deemed to have accepted the terms & conditions and therefore bound by the terms & conditions of parking. 13.2 clearly states that once a parking event takes place, i.e. the terms & conditions of parking are breached, the consideration period discussed in 13.1 no longer applies.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The grace period discussed in 13.3 refers to the time that parking operators must add to the end of a parking event before a Parking Charge Notice is issued, and the Code of Practice outlines this as a minimum of 10 minutes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            13.4 also clarifies that unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for a specific users e.g. Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc. There is no grace period applicable in such areas discussed above.

 

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

 

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

 

In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.

 

Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”

 

We submit that this Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.

 

Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.

 

Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate Parkingeye’s authority to operate at this site and issue Parking Charges is effective from when the enclosed Letter of Authority was signed. It should also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences and the authority is given.

 

Please note that insufficient evidence has been received to cancel the charge.

Please be advised the motorist was able to manually select the amount of time they would need to pay for parking, in relation to time spent on site. It is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking to cover the duration of their stay.

 

System generated results page confirming revenue was taken between the appellant’s entry and exit time to the car park on the date of event.

 

Please see below transactions made on the date of the parking event (PayByPhone transactions will include processing fee in addition to the parking tariff).

 

Vehicle registration entries have been redacted for GDPR purposes.

 

Car Park - Shepherd Street, Liverpool

PayByPhone location code - 803205

Date of Event - 03/01/2023

Time entered - 08:30:34

Time of exit - 08:47:01

 

Redacted Plate  Start Date            End Date                              Duration                              Payment

PE6****              3/1/2023 8:35    3/1/2023 10:35                  2 hours 0 minutes            £4.00

 

M15****            3/1/2023 8:36    3/1/2023 10:36                  2 hours 0 minutes            £4.00

 

B17****              3/1/2023 8:38    4/1/2023 8:38                    24 hours 0 minutes         £10.50

 

CCC****             3/1/2023 8:41    3/1/2023 16:41                  8 hours 0 minutes            £8.50

 

MT1****            3/1/2023 8:44    4/1/2023 8:44                    24 hours 0 minutes         £10.50

 

young077

Also noted this:

Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive 

This mentions staying for 2 hours and then impose the charge is this relevant to the fact I was there 16 minutes?

@Coupon-mad

young077

A bump to see of anyone has any advice before I reply to the evidence pack. The 7 days is up on Tuesday so would like to get it back to them this weekend.

B789

Your point #4 is not going to do anything for you. You can only argue points of law with POPLA as they are not interested in mitigation. Even if you lose the POPLA appeal, it's no big deal and has no bearing on any future claim that may be made.

In this claim, you should look for other threads that mention "frustration of contract" as you were unable to form a contract due to their failed technology. Also, that letter you have shown is in no way proof of anything except that someone can use MS Word and print off some rubbish that they have imagined.

That document is not worth the paper it is printed on. You put the claimant to "strict proof" that they have a valid contract or had one at the time. The document mentions "Parking Eye" but the PCN is from CPP. 

Highlight these few points in your appeal but don't hold your hopes up too high with POPLA as it could be a proper assessor or the tea-boy who decides your appeal on the day.

fisherjim

But that contract is not between CPP and the landowner it's between Parking Eye and the land owner, even though they own CPP they are run as two separate companies so that contract isn't valid evidence as B789 has pointed out.

young077

B789 said:

Your point #4 is not going to do anything for you. You can only argue points of law with POPLA as they are not interested in mitigation. Even if you lose the POPLA appeal, it's no big deal and has no bearing on any future claim that may be made.

In this claim, you should look for other threads that mention "frustration of contract" as you were unable to form a contract due to their failed technology. Also, that letter you have shown is in no way proof of anything except that someone can use MS Word and print off some rubbish that they have imagined.

That document is not worth the paper it is printed on. You put the claimant to "strict proof" that they have a valid contract or had one at the time. The document mentions "Parking Eye" but the PCN is from CPP. 

Highlight these few points in your appeal but don't hold your hopes up too high with POPLA as it could be a proper assessor or the tea-boy who decides your appeal on the day.

Thanks for the pointers, I'll have a look at a few more things across the forum.

80% of that evidence pack is a cut and paste job aswell.

I put point 4 in as a saw an appeal that was successful because they gave a break down of costs which were unreasonable.

It should be simple I tried to pay a couple of ways and none of it was successful so I left and parked elsewhere. Due to only one of two machines being in working order and your typical automated telephone service being time consuming and difficult to use (about 7 minutes to realise I wasn't getting anywhere) it all took the 16 minutes I was there.