Eternity Fire & Security Parc Tawe Retail Park

GrannyKate

There are pictures from July 2022 on google which do show some signs that state 3 hours free parking. in the refusal of your appeal letter dated 5 September they evidently didn't read their own signs as they state;  Overstaying the free 2hr free parking session.  

Coupon-mad

GrannyKate said:

There are pictures from July 2022 on google which do show some signs that state 3 hours free parking. in the refusal of your appeal letter dated 5 September they evidently didn't read their own signs as they state;  Overstaying the free 2hr free parking session.  

I seem to recall in the Parking Cases in the Media thread a few months back that there was a news article about Eternity putting the time limit down to catch more drivers.

Rings a bell.

The OP should complain to the landowner EVEN if that is met with resistance. Complaints are important as it pees off landowners and makes them think twice, in the end when it comes to renewing the parking contract!

Ce1ticWarri0r

POPLA DESISION SUCCESFUL, Thanks everyone. First time thats worked.


Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist exceeded the free parking period.

Assessor summary of your case

- The appellant states they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver. - The appellant states the charge is not prominently displayed on the signage in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. - The appellant advises the motorist was a legitimate user of the site and there is evidence of this. - The appellant states the signage is not clear. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authority. The appellant provided the booking form and banking transaction from the motorist to support their grounds.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: - The appellant states the charge is not prominently displayed on the signage in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is not sufficient brought to the motorists attention. The fairness of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. To conclude on whether the charge is fair, I must first look at what the Court said. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual 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. The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair: “In our opinion, the same considerations which show that the £85 charge is not a penalty, demonstrate that it is not unfair for the purpose of the Regulations.” (paragraph 104) With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair, I must consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and is therefore I cannot conclude it meets the test set out in ParkingEye v Beavis. Therefore, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.