Help with Defending Money Claim against parking fine 16 minutes over 1hr at KFC by Civil Enforcement

lawmystress

Good afternoon guys, 

Have been browsing the forum for years and used very useful tips here to appeal a few unfair fines, but to my dismay, somehow managed to lose POPLA appeal against a ridiculous fine of £100 for overstaying 16 minutes at a local KFC. Followed all the advice here, the Civil Enforcement obviously declined the appeal and below is my POPLA reply and appeal refusal. I feel like POPLA ignored really half of the appeal basis, but here we are. 

Civil Enforcement want £170 fine plus interest of £9.69 and then £35 court fee and £50 capped legal costs. Total £264.69 

I am the keeper of the vehicle, the driver remains unnamed, wasn't me. Just wanted someone to read through POPLA reasoning and tell me if I should defend the claim, anything else to add at all, and to have re-assurance that I definitely won't get CCJ against my name if I lose this claim despite defending it. 

My main problem is that KFC was completely empty when the car was parker, so there is no loss to the business for any used up parking space. The signs showing the limit of parking really wasn't obvious to the driver, driver had 2 kids and an elderly relative with them, so it was all a bit muddled up. But the biggest insult that they overstay was only 16 minutes, so camera shows driving in and out 1h 16 minutes and £100 fine is surely insane! Also, when they originally sent the fine, it has no photographic evidence at all! It only came through when I logged appeal with POPLA and they sent it to them, but never to me. I don't have the original fine letter now, can't find it right now sadly, so I am not sure if they even followed the correct Schedule 4 protocol.

Please see below POPLA reply, I tried to break it up a bit to make it readable. 

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. 

 • The appellant believes that the parking charge notice has been was unlawfully issued and as the keeper will no being naming the driver. 

• The appellant stated that there is no evidence of the parking offence and the parking charge notice did not have any images attached to it.

 • The carpark has no clear signage showing the terms and conditions.

 • Carpark is poorly lit and no signs are lit up by lights 

• No landowner contract.

 • The £100 charge is disproportionate and is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner. 

The appellant has provided 1. Photo of the carpark that shows lighting and signs. 2. Appeal letter. 

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has stated that the evidence shows their vehicle but there is no signs around the parking bay area. The appellant has stated the carpark was empty on the day in question and efficiently managing the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets was pointless as there was lots of empty spaced and there was no potential loss caused. The appellant has also stated that there was no grace period applied. No images were added to the parking charge notice for their vehicle. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

A copy of the Parking Charge Notice has been provided and on the fist page, the last paragraph states under section 4 of the “Protection of Freedoms Act” the keeper is warned that if after 28 days from the PCN date the charge is not paid in full and the name and address of the driver is not known then the charge will be recovered from the keeper as named on the PCN.

This is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is sufficient to allow the motorist to know they will be liable to pay the Parking Charge. Information is also given of what action to take if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle.

 As the appellant has failed to provide the drivers details the appeal will be assessed under keeper liability. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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.

 The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise 60 minute restricted parking for customers only. These signs do comply with Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice to which the operator must adhere, as signs containing the terms and conditions are displayed throughout the site so that drivers are given chance to read them.

 This is demonstrated by the site map The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. As a member of the British Parking Association the operator is required to comply with the British Parking Association single code of practice. 

ANPR images of the vehicle entering the carpark at 14:35 and leaving the carpark at 15:51 to show the vehicle was on site for 1 hours and 16 minutes. The operator has also provided a site map and photos of all signage to demonstrate that clear terms and conditions are viewable to all users. The appellant stated that there is no evidence of the parking offence and the parking charge notice did not have any images attached to it. The appellants vehicle has been captured by ANPR camera images entering the carpark at 14:35 and leaving the carpark at 15:51 to show the vehicle was on site for 1 hours and 16 minute which is 16 minutes over the maximum stay. The operator have not regulations to add these photos to the parking charge notices. 

Under 3.1.6 of the single code of practice states signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle including by headlight in the hours of darkness or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair. 

The site photos show that there are signs attached to lighting poles so would be visible in hours of darkness. However, as the vehicle entered during daylight hours all signs would have been visible to the appellant. 

A copy of the Landowner Authority has been supplied by the operator and there is a valid contract for the operator to manage parking at this site including issuing Parking Charges for breaches of terms and conditions. This document is complaint with the British Parking Associate single code of practice Section 14. This document does show that the contract started on 16 June 2023. The operator would therefore be authorised to manage parking and enforcement on this car park.

 The appellant has said that the driver was not allowed a grace period however the stay has exceeded any consideration period which would be allowed by the BPA Single code of Practice Annex B.1. The appellant has stated that the Parking Charge is disproportionate and is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner.

In the case of ParkingEye vs. Beavis the Supreme Court did rule that a Parking Charges were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £100 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. 

Taking the principles of this decision 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 £100 and therefore allowable.

POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the appellant has exceeded the maximum stay, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Any ideas or help, will be greatly appreciated! 

I am very sorry if I posted the thread in violation of any guide rules, I did read newbie section, and hopefully it's okay. First time thread creator here! 

Thank you 

Gr1pr

Popla only look at the rules,  the Code of Practice and POFA2012 when considering appeals,  so were likely to conclude that the PCN was correctly issued,  it's then up to a court to decide on the issues, especially anything outside the remit of Popla 

Hence why you have a live court claim 

Post a redacted picture of the claim form below after hiding the name and address,  the VRM in the POC, the claim reference number and also the password too, using card or similar ( no scribbling them out  )

You will be following the advice in the second post in the newbies sticky thread plus the advice and template defence in the defence template thread 

lawmystress

Hi! 

Thanks so much for the reply. Also, can you please clarify - the fact that they ended up in Northampton court surely doesn't mean I am expected to go to a hearing there, as I live like 4h away from it on a good day! 

See attached claim form please. Thanks for guiding me which threads to follow too! 

Car1980

Don't assume the signage is any good. Popla are paid by the BPA, and all signage is supposedly audited. So they can't ever go against their paymasters and will always approve the signage.

By the way, how far from Liverpool are you? As this is in-house no way will they will take it all the way for £250 if you live on the south coast 

lawmystress

Car1980 said:

Don't assume the signage is any good. Popla are paid by the BPA, and all signage is supposedly audited. So they can't ever go against their paymasters and will always approve the signage.

By the way, how far from Liverpool are you? As this is in-house no way will they will take it all the way for £250 if you live on the south coast 

Hi! Well I am some mere 300 miles from Liverpool   So I am not entirely sure what's going on. I am defending the claim out of principle and from what I understood and vaguely remember from my law degree, which I happened to have done at Liverpool University, worst case scenario, I will just pay whatever the judge decides I should and no CCJ danger for me! 

Though I have told a few people re above and everyone says it's not worth it and just pay them. Looks like that's the general attitude that keeps them in business as nobody can be bothered to contest it and fill out defence forms 

Gr1pr

Your location is largely irrelevant,  as is the fact that the claim form pack came from a civil service office in Northampton, not from an actual court,  as is the fact that another civil service office called the DVLA is in Swansea,  or the Passport Office in Liverpool,  but any possible future hearing court would actually be at your local civil court,  so not Northampton or Liverpool unless you lived around there

CEL are not based in Liverpool , but they have a Registered Office there

Castle

You have left a PCN reference showing on the claim.

1505grandad

And password.

Coupon-mad

Here's a redacted pic:

Just use the Template Defence. It's very easy.

If you want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

Please come back in a couple of weeks. Bookmark the thread on the Public Consultation. Go read it now, please.

lawmystress

Coupon-mad said:

Here's a redacted pic:

Just use the Template Defence. It's very easy.

If you want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

Please come back in a couple of weeks. Bookmark the thread on the Public Consultation. Go read it now, please.

Hi, I have followed the defence template and put this into para 3 - just about can fit it into the claim. 

Any advice on the below, anything I need to change at all? 

I believe that the parking charge notice was unlawfully issued and as the keeper I decline to name the driver. • The original PCN issued had no evidence whatsoever of the parking offence and it had no any images attached to it. • The carpark has questionable signage showing the terms and conditions. • Carpark is poorly lit and no signs are lit up by lights • No landowner contract. • The £100 charge is disproportionate and is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to their company or the landowner.

Even after the operator sent pictures of the car to POPLA (still nothing sent to me directly),  it still showed no evidence of any clear signs around the parking bay area where the car was. Given that the parking area is at the KFC and McDonalds restaurants, one simply will not assume that there are parking restrictions in force, as this is not the norm for the area.  

The carpark was empty on the day in question and efficiently managing the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets was pointless as there was lots of empty spaced and there was no potential loss caused. The appellant has also stated that there was no grace period applied. No images were added to the parking charge notice for their vehicle.  According to the ticket issued, the alleged parking session was from 14:35 till 15:51 which means it exceeded the allowance by 16 minutes. This is simply outrageous cost of parking for 16 minutes (no grace period provided/nor considered).

 

lawmystress

Sorry, sent the draft version above which I compiled from my original appeal and POPLA reply. Here is the final version! 

I believe that the parking charge notice was unlawfully issued and as the keeper I declined to name the driver. • The original PCN issued had no evidence whatsoever of the parking offence and it had no any images attached to it. • The carpark has questionable signage showing the terms and conditions. • Carpark is poorly lit and no signs are lit up by lights • No landowner contract. • The £100 charge is disproportionate and is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to their company or the landowner.

Even after the operator sent pictures of the car to POPLA (still nothing sent to me directly),  it still showed no evidence of any clear signs around the parking bay area where the car was. Given that the parking area is at the KFC and McDonalds restaurants, one simply will not assume that there are parking restrictions in force, as this is not the norm for the area.  

The carpark was empty on the day in question and efficiently managing the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets was pointless as there was lots of empty spaced and there was no potential loss caused.  According to the ticket issued, the alleged parking session was from 14:35 till 15:51 which means it exceeded the allowance by 16 minutes. This is simply outrageous cost of parking for 16 minutes (no grace period provided/nor considered).