Any point appealing an "out of hours" stay for 17 minutes (ParkingEye)

Coupon-mad

Definitely; there is no reason to pay it. But that doesn't mean you have to waste time on POPLA.

ecuador_gr

I got my popla code, as parkingeye rejected my appeal (they did not really answer the arguments). AI suggest I appeal on 4 grounds:
- No contract was formed – prohibitive signage outside stated hours

• - The operator prevented payment and therefore prevented contractual acceptance

• - The driver was within a reasonable consideration period as required by the BPA Code of Practice

• - Inadequate entrance signage

Any idea how often these work? Especially the first one, I am not sure if AI is making up the case law:

1. No Contract Was Formed – Prohibitive Signage

The main tariff signage at the site clearly states:

“NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF THESE TIMES”
Mon–Fri 5pm–8am
All Day Sat & Sun

This wording is prohibitive in nature. It does not offer parking outside those hours in exchange for payment; it forbids parking outright.

Where signage forbids parking rather than offering parking on specified terms, no contractual offer is made. Without an offer, there can be no acceptance and therefore no contract. A parking charge cannot arise from breach of contract if no contract existed.

The Supreme Court case ParkingEye v Beavis concerned a contractual arrangement where parking was permitted subject to compliance with time limits. That case does not apply to a situation where parking is expressly prohibited.

If parking is prohibited, the only possible cause of action would be trespass, which can only be pursued by the landowner, not a parking operator acting under contract.

Accordingly, no contract was formed and no contractual charge can be due.

Coupon-mad

I think we have seen that win at POPLA once last year so try it if you want.

AI has not imagined the famous Beavis case… try searching the forum and you will get tens of thousands of results over the last ten years!

Unlit signs in the pitch black also can win at POPLA if you evidence it fully. A poster reported a win exactly on that 'unlit signs in a poorly designed space so it took longer to see any signs and go over to read one, realise the driver couldn't park, then manoeuvre out and leave' point last week, IIRC.

Another thing that POPLA like is if you say the driver 'gained no amenity from the site' and the driver left and parked elsewhere (proved with evidence). If you have that, add it!

Post 3 of the NEWBIES thread tells you how to put together a good POPLA appeal.

You'll need photos taken in the dark without a flash, and lots of pics of a LACK of signs from all angles.

Especially good if the entrance sign offers parking for X hours in the largest text. Get a pic of that as well.

Umkomaas

Make sure any photos you submit to POPLA are time and date stamped, otherwise they will likely disregard them.

patient_dream

ParkingEye signs are rubbish and must be considered as unfair to the public. The reason being the tiny print they call Terms and conditions

Such signs have been around for years, the BPA are aware of this but failed to do anyrthing about it.

Send that picture to the CMA

ecuador_gr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81890767#Comment_81890767

You mean the jpeg metadata?

Gr1pr

Correct, its not just the photograph , it needs to have the time and date showing

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891492#Comment_81891492

Yep, that’s the one, showing on the photo image. 👍