VARS TECH PCN Asda Express Bham

FactsNotFiction298

(Images removed by Forum Team)

Hi,

I have posted the pics of my PCN from EG Asda Express site in Bham.

I have read through many, many posts and threads but am a little late to the party, so have kinda admitted to be the driver or that I had to stop to charge my EV at the site and received the charge for overstaying the 90 mins allowance - wasn't aware of it and just wouldn't expect EV chargers to have time limitations legally unless made super clear.

I've also put my POPLA appeal outcome below, to which VARS have now said I must cough up. So wondering where to go from here, do I just pay up or try to defend? Thanks

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name (Removed by Forum Team)

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• They were paying for the electric charging service after making an emergency trip to see a family member.

• They think it is unfair to receive a PCN when they would not have had sufficient charge to get home meaning they would need to stop again

• They are extremely disappointed. • They didn’t see the signage. • They were a legitimate user of the site. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates and expands on their grounds of appeal

• The operator’s own wording supports their position. • The operator’s claim that the driver “does not need to read the terms” is legally incorrect. • The charge is disproportionate and punitive.

• They request that the PCN is cancelled. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: • Charging receipt. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who exceed the 90-minute maximum stay.

The appellant has provided a copy of their charging receipt and stated that they were a legitimate user of the site, explaining that it would have been inconvenient for them to stop charging their vehicle. However, this does not exempt them from the terms and conditions in place. It remains the motorist’s responsibility to monitor their duration on site and ensure they do not exceed the maximum permitted stay.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. 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 have provided images of the signs and a site map. This shows frequent signage throughout the site.

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 is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.

Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity. I note that the appellant believes the site wording supports their position; however, the phrase “no concessions apply” means the motorist has no additional leeway for the time spent charging their vehicle and is not exempt from the site’s terms and conditions. All users remain responsible for adhering to the maximum stay permitted.

I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is unfair, disproportionate and punitive. 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. I do empathise that the appellant wants the PCN cancelled. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is to assess whether a Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly based on the evidence provide by both parties. It is simply not within our remit to allow an appeal which the motorist breached the parking condition. For further support you may wish to speak with Citizens Advice on 03444 111 444.

Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on and reiterate the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report.

Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded the max stay 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. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist. Wait for letter of/before claim and then N1SDT claim form. Be prepared for an avalanche of debt collector letters, which you do, of course, IGNORE.

FactsNotFiction298

Thank you for that, appreciate it.

I was just concerned after reading the threads that I had already mentioned i stopped to charge the car, that I had missed the first step on the newbies thread. I'm doing my best to keep up with it all, there's an awful lot to read but will keep this up to date with progress

James_Poisson

You have left all your personal details on those images I have reported them.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81921399#Comment_81921399

No worries.

Ignore them now and please don't show us the £170 threatograms. These are already in pictures in post 4 of the NEWBIES thread to stop us having to waste any time reading post after post about an 'ignore' stage!