MET PCN at BP Stanstead SF CM24 1PY

Horseleas

Met stated: 

"The charge is out of proportion We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis which may be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf. This ruling revolved around a charge of similar size and nature and the judges ruled that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable. 

Report"

Is there anything I could comment on this please? 

Coupon-mad

Nope.

You are taking it too seriously (reading their template drivel as if it matters) yet you won't be paying even if you lose.

Horseleas

Thank you I am going to submit it now. Thanks I will keep you posting.  Fingers crossed 🤞 

Horseleas

Operator Name

MET Parking Services - EW

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the appellant exceeding the stay authorised.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

- The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

- The appellant states the signage is not clear or prominent on the site with reference to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sections 19.2,19.3, 19.4 and Appendix B. The appellant states the motorist did not enter a contract as they did not see the signs.

- The appellant requests evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and raises new grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided two images of the garage shop front as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state there is a 30-minute maximum stay. The operator’s evidence shows the appellant was on site for 48 minutes. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100.

- The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 22.8 of the BPA Code of Practice states ‘While we have an expectation that operators will seek to use the POFA legislation, it is appreciated that there will be occasions where this might not be possible. If a non-POFA Notice to Keeper is being issued it must be sent out as soon as possible and no later than 7 months after the original parking event.’ As the appellant has admitted to being the driver the operator did not need to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 when they issued the PCN. As such, as this is a non-POFA PCN the operator has seven months in which to issue it to the driver. POPLA’s remit is to determine if a charge has been issued correctly. If an appellant has a service-related grievance with the operator about the length of time the PCN took to arrive, it needs to be addressed with the operator directly as it has no bearing on the validity of the PCN.

- The appellant states the signage is not clear or prominent on the site with reference to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sections 19.2,19.3, Beavis vs Parkingeye and Appendix B. The appellant states the motorist did not enter a contract as they did not see the signs. The appellant has provided images of the garage stop front to support their grounds. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows the entrance sign states the site is private land and gives a brief description of the terms, stating motorists should refer to the signage. From this I am satisfied there is a clear entrance sign which meets the requirements set by the BPA. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator has provided a site map which shows 22 signs stating the maximum stay on the site. This information is written in bold, black, capital letters against a white background to make it clearly visible to motorists. The signs are affixed to posts to make them visible above vehicles on site. It should be noted it is the motorist’s responsibility to seek out the conditions of the site upon entering. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and evidence regarding the store front however the operator’s images show there is a sign in the window by the entry to the store, therefore I am satisfied motorists entering the store would see this on approach. It should be noted the appellant’s images are taking from the left-hand side of the store near the cash machine and whilst there is no sign there, there are multiple signs as shown on the site map within close proximity. I am satisfied from the evidence presented that the signage meets the requirements set by the BPA. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is unfair contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. 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 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 according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, I have to take into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore not unfair. Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. The parking operator has advised the signage is made of retro – reflective material which is used on road signs to make them visible in the dark. The operator has also evidenced that the signs are illuminated by multiple lighting poles within the site, therefore I am satisfied the signage was visible at the time the appellant visited. While I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. I am satisfied from the evidence presented that the appellant was afforded the opportunity to read the terms and conditions.

- The appellant requests evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. The operator has provided a copy of a signed contract which is dated June 2016 and states after the initial 24-month period it is an ongoing contract. I am satisfied the operator has landowner authority to operate on the site. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these this as part of my decision. The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant exceeded the stay authorised and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

I just don't understand why POPLA didn't take in consideration the different Postcode from the contact and from the PCN. They said it a new ground but it's not.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore it now.  No paying.  Sadly, you left yourself clutching at straws instead of the certain winning point you had as keeper, when the PCN arrived in the post.

"As the appellant has admitted to being the driver the operator did not need to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 when they issued the PCN."

You'll know better next time (spread the word).

Horseleas

I know I did admit driving, my fault.  I would like to ask couple questions:
- I am going to leave England next year(not sure if i will come bavk one day). What will happen if they ask me to go to court?
- I spent approx. 12h on this appeal I would earn 3x more if I had worked (is it worth it?)
- In which points I will be able to vin the court?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

When you are about to move abroad, email the parking firm and debt collector/solicitor who sent the last letter and tell them to ERASE THE OLD ADDRESS and replace it with NEW ADDRESS OVERSEAS.

You are then untouchable!

Horseleas

Och that's great news thank you Coupon-mad 😊 

Fruitcake

Make sure you use the word erase when you send the rectification notice to the DPO of both companies, and include proof of overseas residency as well.