PPS private parking solutions - PCN issued whilst passengers in the car

Nellymoser

Oh they talked about much more than the 5min rule. So typical of this industry can't listen to criticism. Doubt they've heard of reflect and learn.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Nellymoser said:

Oh they talked about much more than the 5min rule. So typical of this industry can't listen to criticism. Doubt they've heard of reflect and learn.

No surprise there then!

They have no intention of reflecting or learning....they just want more ill earned gains!

Coupon-mad

The really funny thing is that they only have their greed to blame for any improved robustness to the statutory regime that might come their way under this Government.

I seem to recall Steve Clark at the BPA issued what seemed to be a pragmatic 'be careful what you wish for' warning to AOS members waaaay back in 2021/2022 at a BPA AOS virtual meeting where we had a friendly attendee.

Steve was recorded pointing out (and it was here on this forum) words to the effect that if they hadn't thrown their toys out the pram in 2021 when PPC World didn't like everything that the Tories were planning for the Code that year, they'd have had a Code with the added £70 allowed.

The regulars will recall from the Public Consultation in 2021 that the MHCLG (as it was before becoming the DLUHC) had fallen hook line and sinker for the industry's line that "adding £70 is the industry norm".

But instead the industry (aided by their pet lawyer) kicked and screamed about another detail and they lost ground massively: they never saw the added £70 allowed again in any future publicised info. And I'm confident they never will.

Even worse for them, instead of being canny and reining it in these past 5 years since COVID, they've got noticeably much worse. 

And although it seemed impossible, their conduct has got (noticeably) even worse again, since the Joint Code.

Consideration period? Forget it. No chance. Immediate ticketing is rife.

Court claims and predatory ticketing is through the roof, £70 is added on the stroke of day 28 (long term BPA 'best practice' reminder letters - clause 24.4 - was binned) and a significant number of the industry are now lying about liability whilst telling registered keepers that they have no right to appeal.

No wonder the MPs tore them a new one.

Rickerdoom

They responded but they contradict themselves they state that the signage was clear while simultaneously admitting the nearest sign was behind the vehicle and unreadable from its position? Neverthless 1 minute is not enough time to read the sign regardless of where you are.

What do you guys think?

"Dear Assessor,

The contract on which we are seeking payment arises from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking, as stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain at this location. The signage, including two entrance signs, makes motorists aware that they are entering private land. The terms and conditions, along with the potential consequences of non-adherence, have been made fully available: “PRIVATE LAND. This car park is controlled by Warden Patrols. If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. No parking on yellow lines/footpaths or causing an obstruction of any kind.”
As noted on the signage, one of the reasons a PCN would be issued is obstructive parking, which is a contravention at the site. The parking charge was issued due to obstructive parking because the driver parked on a roadway that connects two clearly designated car parks. This parking prevented vehicles from entering or exiting either car park, creating a significant obstruction.
The appellant’s comments are acknowledged; however, their statement is contradictory. Before lodging their appeal, they should have determined whether the driver used the time on site to read the signage, as they suggest was the reason for their brief stay. If the signs were not prominent or clear enough to be read, it undermines the claim that the brief stop was used to assess those same signs. Their own admission that the stop was to assess signage supports that the terms were available to be read. However, the evidence demonstrates that the nearest sign is positioned behind the appellant’s vehicle, making it impossible for the driver to read it from where they were parked. As such, we submit that the driver did not stop to read the sign. Furthermore, the purpose of designated car parks is to ensure that drivers park within designated spaces and do not obstruct other users. It is common sense that vehicles should be parked in parking spaces to maintain order and accessibility for all motorists; this does not need to be explicitly stated on the signage.
While it is not disputed that motorists are given a grace period to read the signs and decide whether to stay or leave, the driver cannot benefit from the grace period in this case, as parking spaces are provided on site and obstructive parking is prohibited.
The absence of evidence that the driver left the vehicle is irrelevant, as the contract applies once the vehicle is parked in breach of the terms. The evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was stationary and, therefore, parked. By remaining obstructively on site, the driver contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge.
A PCN represents a contractually agreed charge for breaching parking terms. While the appellant may argue that the charge does not reflect any loss, the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis clarified that such charges do not need to reflect actual loss but must be reasonable. The £85 charge aligns with the standard upheld in this case. Full details of the judgment are available online for the appellant’s reference.
We would also like to advise that we are not required to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as we can hold the keeper liable for the charge. In this case, we requested the registered keeper’s details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper at the address listed. The evidence does not indicate that the keeper provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver. By failing to provide the driver’s details, the appellant (the keeper) has assumed liability for this PCN. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the motorist to ensure they understand the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to park."

Coupon-mad

LOL, just comment by pointing out the absurdity of this admission:

 "However, the evidence demonstrates that the nearest sign is positioned behind the appellant’s vehicle, making it impossible for the driver to read it from where they were parked."

Boat_to_Bolivia

Coupon-mad said:

The really funny thing is that they only have their greed to blame for any improved robustness to the statutory regime that might come their way under this Government.

I seem to recall Steve Clark at the BPA issued what seemed to be a pragmatic 'be careful what you wish for' warning to AOS members waaaay back in 2021/2022 at a BPA AOS virtual meeting where we had a friendly attendee.

Steve was recorded pointing out (and it was here on this forum) words to the effect that if they hadn't thrown their toys out the pram in 2021 when PPC World didn't like everything that the Tories were planning for the Code that year, they'd have had a Code with the added £70 allowed.

Shooting themselves in the foot I hope.

I have no doubt these money making scammers will be stopped, it's just a matter of how long it will take and how many more victims are scammed out of their money or worse, their credit history destroyed by fraudsters in the meantime! 

It's despicable!

Rickerdoom

Coupon-mad said:

LOL, just comment by pointing out the absurdity of this admission:

 "However, the evidence demonstrates that the nearest sign is positioned behind the appellant’s vehicle, making it impossible for the driver to read it from where they were parked."

Do you think this will suffice? 

The operator’s own admission that “the nearest sign is positioned behind the appellant’s vehicle, making it impossible for the driver to read it from where they were parked” is both absurd and self-defeating. It effectively concedes that the signage was not visible to the driver at the point of stopping, which directly undermines their claim that a contract was formed. A fundamental principle of contract law is that terms must be communicated prior to acceptance. If, by their own account, the signage was positioned such that the driver could not read it, then no offer was communicated and no contract could possibly have been formed. It is illogical to claim both that the driver was bound by terms and that those terms were not visible at the moment they supposedly became binding. A stationary vehicle present for barely one minute, with no visible signage from its position and no indication of obstruction, cannot reasonably be construed as entering into a parking contract. These contradictions, coupled with the lack of clear evidence, render the operator’s justification both flawed and unsupported.

Coupon-mad

Yep.       

Rickerdoom

Unfortunetly they rejected the appeal. 
 Assessor’s response doesn’t add up and shows some clear misunderstandings. They agree that drivers must be given a chance to read the signs before being held to the terms, but then accept the operator’s own statement that the sign was behind the car and couldn’t be seen from where it was stopped. That completely defeats the point of giving someone a chance to read the terms. They also acknowledge there’s meant to be a grace period but dismiss it just because they assume the car was left unattended based only on a couple of photos taken a minute apart, with no actual proof the driver got out or planned to park.

Theire response 

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 a PCN will be issued for causing an obstruction. The operator has provided warden images which show the vehicle in question blocking the exit. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states that in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice, the motorist is entitled to a grace period upon entering a site, to review the terms for parking. The appellant quotes the Code and states the vehicle was observed for 1 minute and therefore motorist did not enter into a contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the timings and the screenshots, the warden images show the vehicle being observed unattended, as the vehicle was left parked, the motorist agreed to the terms of the contract and the consideration period no longer applies. - The appellant states the signage is not clear and the charge amount is not prominent in accordance with the Code and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. 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 and not rely on the staff or business in question to provide them with this information as they are not obligated to do so. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. I acknowledge the appellant continued to dispute the signage in the motorist comments and the signage evidence they presented for a different site, but the site map shows the site is well signposted, and the warden images show the vehicle parked next to a sign. As such, I am satisfied that the motorist had the opportunity to read the terms. I note that the appellant states the amount of the charge was not appropriately brought to their attention. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. 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. 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 itself. 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 legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. - The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authorisation. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The operator has provided a signed contract with the landowner which shows it has landowner authorisation to enforce charges on the land. Although the Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. 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 motorist parked in an obstructive manner 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.

kryten3000

Doesn't matter because you're still not going to pay them.