Unhappy with Popla decision

41tamimi

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as used drop off zone without making a payment within the allowed timeframe. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided their grounds of appeal, which I’ve summarised below: • They feel there was an autopay system failure. • There is no evidence that they accepted the terms and conditions as there wasn’t clear signage. • They feel the PCN is disproportionate. • No reminder was sent to tell them they needed to pay for parking. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. The appellant provided two images of screen shot of Gatwick Airport account information in support of their appeal. The evidence has been included in my assessment. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which details the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise paying for the drop off zone. The signage goes on to state that failure to meet the above terms will result in a PCN being issued for £100. I have carefully considered the appellant’s comments and acknowledge their belief that an AutoPay facility was in place. I have also reviewed the two images submitted in support of this assertion. However, these images do not demonstrate when the AutoPay account was established, and I note they are dated 04/03/26, which is after the parking event in question. Furthermore, the operator has confirmed that no AutoPay arrangement was active for the vehicle registration at the relevant time. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the AutoPay system was not operational on the date of the parking event. The appellant has also raised concerns regarding signage. I have considered the three images provided in support of this ground of appeal. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (“the Code”) sets out the standards that operators must meet. Section 3.1.1 requires that entrance signage is displayed and maintained to inform motorists whether parking is permitted, subject to terms and conditions, or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 outlines the principles that entrance signage must follow, including clearly indicating whether parking is available to the public and whether payment is required. The signage must also comply with the standard format set out in Annex A and take into account the speed of approaching vehicles. Based on the operator’s evidence, I am satisfied that clear entrance signage is in place, advising motorists that the land is privately managed and that terms and conditions apply. Section 3.1.3 of the Code requires that terms and conditions signage is positioned throughout the site so that drivers have the opportunity to read it when parking or leaving their vehicle. The signage must be clear, legible, and unambiguous, with appropriate font size and contrast. Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that adequate signage is present within the drop-off zone, clearly setting out the applicable terms and conditions. The appellant has also stated that the charge is disproportionate. In considering this point, I have taken into account the relevant case law, in particular ParkingEye v Beavis. In this case, the Supreme Court held that although private parking charges may have the characteristics of a contractual penalty, they can still be enforceable where there is a legitimate interest in managing parking. The Court found that a charge in the region of £85 was not excessive, particularly where it was clearly displayed on the signage. While the circumstances in that case involved an overstay in a free car park, the underlying principles remain applicable. Accordingly, I have considered the charge amount alongside the clarity and prominence of the signage, rather than assessing whether the charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Having done so, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficiently clear and that the charge, being in line with the level considered in Beavis, is not disproportionate. Finally, I note the appellant’s concern that no reminders were issued regarding payment for the drop-off zone. While I appreciate this point, the responsibility rests with the motorist to ensure that payment is made in accordance with the terms and conditions, including by the specified deadline. The operator is not obliged to issue reminders. Upon consideration of all the evidence, the appellant never made a payment for the drop off charge within the time limit provided and were in breach of the terms and conditions. Accordingly, this appeal is refused.

At the time of the incident, I genuinely believed that an AutoPay arrangement was active for my vehicle, as I had already registered and used the Gatwick Airport payment system previously. There was never any intention to avoid payment of the drop-off charge.

As a professional driver travelling frequently between airports, I rely on automated payment systems for convenience and safety while driving. Had I received any reminder, notification, or indication that payment had not been processed, I would have paid the required charge immediately.

I respectfully ask the operator to consider that:

• I was already a registered user of the system;
• There was no deliberate non-payment;
• The original drop-off fee itself was minimal;
• The £100 charge is extremely harsh considering the circumstances.

I would therefore be grateful if the charge could either be cancelled as a gesture of goodwill or reduced to the original drop-off fee plus any reasonable administrative costs.

Gr1pr

Name the private parking company claimant involved please. ( NCP or APCOA. ? ) Which Airport. ?

You can ignore the popla appeal decision

Coupon-mad

If that was an Airport drop off PCN it was 100% winnable, had you come here first.

Such an easy one! Missed opportunity.

But ignore it.

Who was it? Gatwick Airport used to be NCP but they are in Administration.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82005252#Comment_82005252

NCP (EUK) now times 24