POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad · 13 April 2018 at 5:09PM

And yet we all firmly believe that Aldi do NOT give ParkingEye authority to pursue charges in the courts. Did the WS have that line in it, about court, and Aldi signed it, bergkamp?

bergkamp · 13 April 2018 at 5:59PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And yet we all firmly believe that Aldi do NOT give ParkingEye authority to pursue charges in the courts. Did the WS have that line in it, about court, and Aldi signed it, bergkamp?

I'll post up the appeal, rebuttal and WS later when I have access to my laptop CM....

bergkamp · 13 April 2018 at 10:36PM

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hd71mv6vuwzxlnh/pewitstatement.jpg?dl=0

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5827464#3

Coupon-mad · 14 April 2018 at 12:49AM

Hmmm...conspicuous by their absence are the words 'including in the courts if necessary'.

Umkomaas · 14 April 2018 at 8:19AM

bergkamp wrote: »

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hd71mv6vuwzxlnh/pewitstatement.jpg?dl=0

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5827464#3

Witness Statement signed in retrospect, just a couple of weeks ago. Seems there was nothing previously in place - no proof.

I wonder what authority a 'Customer Services Supervisor' has to sign 'contractual' documents? Presumably the in-house cleaner wasn't available at the time?

stevem365 · 14 April 2018 at 11:23AM

Original Thread:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73637491#post73637491

I kept things simple with this and followed the excellent advice of key contributors to this forum. Thanks for your help :T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Ashlea Forshaw
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator's case is that the appellant failed to purchase parking time at the site.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided a document which outlines his grounds for appeal. These grounds are as follows;
The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may be liable for the charge.
No evidence of landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states, "Parking Tariffs Apply....up to 3 hours £3.00". Additionally, it states, "Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of £100". The car park is monitored by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras have captured the vehicle entering the site at 19:06 and exiting at 21:56, totalling a stay of two hours and 49 minutes. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for failing to purchase parking time at the site.

The appellant has provided a document which outlines his grounds for appeal. However, I will focus solely on the concerns regarding the signage at the site. The appellant has said that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has also said in his comments to POPLA that the photos of all signs are in daylight and are not true indicators of the night-time conditions of the time of the alleged event.

Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice states: "A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver's use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are". Additionally, appendix B states, "Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective".

Having assessed the operator's evidence of the signage displayed at the site, I am not satisfied that this proves that the signs are displayed clearly in the dark. The images have been taken during daylight hours and therefore, this is not during the time that the appellant was parked. The ANPR photos clearly demonstrate that the appellant has entered the site during the hours of darkness. Therefore, I would expect the operator to provide sufficient evidence proving that there is lighting at the site and that the signs can be clearly seen during the hours of darkness. On this occasion, the operator has failed to demonstrate this and so, I cannot conclude that a contract was formed. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and the other grounds for appeal do not need any further consideration.

Wonderkamp · 16 April 2018 at 12:32PM

Original Thread:
hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5814486

Decision: Not contested

Summary: Wing Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

3 stage process with Islington - Thanks again for all the advice and help here. Very happy chappy!!

Coupon-mad · 16 April 2018 at 12:43PM

Nice result!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5814486

Wing Parking are easy to beat when you jump through the 3 stage hoops without revealing the driver.

mick_miller · 16 April 2018 at 1:29PM

POPLA Appeal Successful

POPLA assessment and decision: XX/XX/2018
Verification Code: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration XXXX XXX, parked and the driver left the premises.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant believes the operator has failed to adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, specifically in regards to when the operator issued the Notice to Keeper. He is questioning the operator's authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this site. He states that the signage is not clear and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided a pdf document detailing his grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions state: 'Southgate Park' Standsted customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park'McDonald's is not in Southgate Park, 'If you wish to park here for McDonald's you must pay from when you enter the car park'and that 'If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100.00 Parking Charge'. The operator's case file includes photographs of the signage at the site showing these terms. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle parking at the site and the driver then leaving the site on foot. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: 'the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.'. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: 'You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are' Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: 'You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle''Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand'. In addition to this, I note that within the POFA 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows: '(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land'. Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficiently clear. As quoted above, the sign both forbids motorists to park here for McDonald's while also inviting motorists to park here for McDonald's. Therefore, the operator is offering contradictory terms. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.`

Coupon-mad · 16 April 2018 at 4:59PM

The terms and conditions state:

'Southgate Park' Standsted customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park (McDonald's is not in Southgate Park). 'If you wish to park here for McDonald's you must pay from when you enter the car park' and that 'If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100.00 Parking Charge'.

Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficiently clear.

As quoted above, the sign both forbids motorists to park here for McDonald's while also inviting motorists to park here for McDonald's. Therefore, the operator is offering contradictory terms. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.

LOL, good decision by POPLA about forbidding signs, that's a first!

We must use this again about MET cases at Stansted McDonalds (I think there's a similar set up at Gatwick too).

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free