NCP Epping LUL Ticket - Not parking in bay

Thank you all; I have submitted comments and here's hoping! Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate the assistance!

Rp

Hi all,

POPLA have rejected the appeal with following explanation -

The terms and conditions of the site state: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued for failure to comply with the terms and conditions (which can be found in and around this car park). This includes the following breaches: failure to park wholly within an authorised parking bay or area or causing an obstruction”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist did not park correctly within the markings of the bay space. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle at the time of the parking event. Upon review of this, it is evident that the motorist did not park within a marked bay that day. The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately. The appellant advises that a compliant notice to keeper was not served and therefore no keeper liability can apply.

The appellant believes that the operator has not demonstrated that the individual that it is pursuing is in fact the owner who may have been potentially liable for the charge. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. As the appellant has identified himself as the driver within his initial appeal to the operator, PoFA 2012 does not apply in this case. The operator does not need to adhere to the provisions set out in PoFA, as it is not seeking to transfer liability for the charge. The appellant believes that the railway land is not ‘relevant land’. Within the evidence pack, the operator has stated that the PCN was not issued under byelaws. As such, I am satisfied that the land is in fact relevant land. The appellant’s case is that the signs at the site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He believes that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 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 Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (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. The Act then moved on to define “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 sufficient to bring the parking charge and the terms and conditions to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. The appellant states that the operator has not provided evidence of its landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice’s requirements. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist did not park within a marked bay, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

I guess it is £100 down the drain

Thank you. I appreciate the assistance and this forum would be my first contact on anything remotely closed to a parking ticket :-) I guess I was overly confident of score [before this one] of 4-0 but as you said, shot myself in the foot. Just puzzles me that no other points were considered, including genuinely small fonts etc... Oh well..

I will think long and hard before making any decision on this. I am well aware of such things not coming to anything except threatening debt collection agency letters but it is great stress for someone like myself and the BH. Shame one can not challenge POPLA decision tho'.

Cheers and as noted before, I am appreciative of all the help and guidance :-)

Have a great weekend everyone!