UKPC

jetjockey320 · 5 October at 6:37PM

I have recently lost an appeal to POPLA on a UK PC fine for being over a white line on an almost empty car park. Their judgement is as follows and it is still my view that whilst the signs, 8ft up, stated that over staying 3 hours is subject to a fine, there is no clear evidence that parking over a white line is punishable. The car park was almost empty and therefore no loss occured to the operators. It was a free car park and I was visiting a Currys store.

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Claire Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The PCN does not indicate the time of arrival or departure and only a snapshot has been taken. • The infringement is minor in nature and does not justify the £100 charge. The parking charge is excessive, and The Supreme Court ruling 'Parking Eye v Beavis' states parking charges must not be "extravagant or unconscionable". The car park was virtually empty and there can have been no loss to them. • The signs as demonstrated by the attached photographs are not clear. The first sign on entry to the car park clearly states that conditions apply, however, the second sign has the details some eight or more feet in the air and the only discernible condition is not to exceed three hours. None of the signs clearly indicate that parking must be within the white lines. The appellant has provided an image of an entrance sign and an image of a sign within. This has been considered in my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said the position of the signs is not in dispute, the first entrance sign is clear and states that terms and conditions apply. They have said that from the point at which they parked and walked into the Curry’s store, the sign containing the details is some eight to ten feet in the air and the only readable element relates to the three-hour limit. They have said that nowhere can you read that a charge will apply for wheels over a white line. The appellant has also said the operator has not answered the point raised on the Supreme Court ruling about the level of the charge.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site and our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage in place at a site sets out the terms and conditions. The signage at this site states that all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays. It also states if the terms and conditions are breached a PCN for £100 can be issued. The parking operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle on site, not parked wholly within a marked bay. I acknowledge the appellant has said the PCN does not indicate the time of arrival or departure and only a snapshot has been taken. As this PCN has not been issued in relation to the time the vehicle has been on site for, an entry, exit time or length of stay is not relevant. In this case, as the appellant was not parked within a marked bay as required, they were not authorised to park on site for any time at all. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. If a motorist remains parked on site, they accept the contract on offer and also the consequence of not complying with this. I acknowledge the appellant has said that the signage is not clear. They have said the first sign on entry to the car park clearly states that conditions apply, however, the second sign has the details some eight or more feet in the air and the only discernible condition is not to exceed three hours. They have said none of the signs clearly indicate that parking must be within the white lines. After viewing the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has also said the position have of the signs is not in dispute. They have said the first entrance sign is clear and states that terms and conditions apply, and then from the point at which they parked and walked into the Curry’s store, the sign containing the details is some eight to ten feet in the air and the only readable element relates to the three-hour limit. 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. 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. From what the appellant has said in their appeal, I am satisfied that they were aware that parking restrictions applied on site, and I am also satisfied that there was signage on site. The images of signage the appellant has provided displays this is Ocean Parking signage. This is a different car park operator to what operates the site in question. Furthermore, the entrance sign they have provided an image of says, “Menai Retail Park” and this PCN has been issued for a site called Bangor Retail Park and the parking operator here is UK Parking Control. This appears to be for a different car park, therefore this does not make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. Within their case file, the parking operator has provided images of the signage on site, and this shows there are multiple signs in different locations. Some positioned on posts, some on the walls. In this case, the appellant could have approached a sign they were able to read in full. If they were unable to see what the terms and conditions for parking were, they could have left the site to park elsewhere. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. Annex B says this is a minimum, of five minutes. I appreciate the appellant may not have wanted to, but they could have left the site within the consideration period. Remaining parked on site accepted the contract on offer and the consequence of not complying with this. I acknowledge the appellant has said the infringement is minor in nature and does not justify the £100 charge. They have said they feel the parking charge is excessive, and The Supreme Court ruling 'Parking Eye v Beavis' states parking charges must not be "extravagant or unconscionable". The appellant has said the car park was virtually empty at the time and there can have been no loss to them, and the operator has not addressed this ground of appeal in their response. POPLAs role is only to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator in line with the terms and conditions on site and we can only allow or refuse an appeal. We have no influence on how the operator operates, including how they handle their appeals. This is something the appellant could raise with the operator directly. The appeal reason raised has 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 had reiterated their grounds of appeal, after viewing the parking operator’s case file, as these grounds have been addressed above, I will not comment on them further. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant did not park correctly within the markings of the bay or space, and therefore they 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. Any questions relating to payment of the charge should be directed to the operator.

Car1980 · 5 October at 6:57PM

See why Popla is a kangaroo court?

Ignore and wait for your court claim, which is likely to be through DCB Legal. If so they'll discontinue.

Over a white line is getting into de minimis territory.

Car1980 · 5 October at 7:01PM

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. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions

Bollox. The requirement and onus is on the operator to make the contract and restrictions clear. It's not a game of hide and seek.