IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Forgot to display Parking Ticket - POPLA Rejection: City Permits
Options
everclear81
Posts: 3 Newbie
Hi,
I'm looking for advice on whether I should refuse to pay the PCN I was issued in November by City Permits, and go down the small claims route should they wish to do that.The POPLA assessor cites a case not relevant to my circumstance in their justification for their descision as I did not overstay the time I paid for - I forgot to display my ticket,but submitted evidence of paying for a ticket in my defence, promptly. I've included POPLA's 'Assessor supporting rational for decision' below.
To be honest with the amount of stress this is causing me, I was about to give up and pay the reduced fee of £60 which I assumed was still available while the appeal is being read by POPLA, but apparently it isn't. As City Permits are now demanding the full amount of £100, it has renewed my desire to stand up for myself in this matter - if there is any sense in doing so.
The appellant has identified himself as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event, as such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. When entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PRIVATE PROPERTY… CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. This land is strictly for the parking of motor vehicles that comply with the following conditions indicated below PAY & DISPLAY. Parking Enforcement in operation. Regulations relating to this carpark. All Pay & Display tickets must be clearly displayed & attached to the front windscreen of your vehicle with the time and date of expiry clearly visible… All users of this car park must purchase and display a valid ticket in their vehicle… PARKING CHARGE NOTICE: £100.00”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, observed parked at the site on 21 November 2019 at 13:31. All the vehicle was parked not displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket, the PCN has been issued.
The appellant states that they made the honest mistake of forgetting to display their ticket after purchasing it and have evidence of the ticket, which covers the entirety of the time they parked there. The appellant says though forgetting to display, they caused no financial loss to the landowner and have a clear conscience in having proved they paid for the time their vehicle was parked.
The appellant says the demand for £60 from the operator is unreasonable considering they submitted proof that they had paid the landowner the requisite amount for the time parked and have both the ticket and bank records to prove so. As evidence to support their appeal they have provided a photograph of their parking ticket.
After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant has commented on the evidence pack to support their original appeal. The appellant says they would advise that the operator should install signs at pedestrian exits of the car park along the lines of 'have you remembered to display your ticket'? and install far more visible signage around the car park than they currently have. They say it is currently inadequate and based on their experience the operator is obviously using its small print and inadequately displayed signage to ensnare honest customers of the car park who have paid the landlord the required amount to park there.
While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the signage, I cannot consider them now as these are new grounds of appeal. When POPLA invited the appellant to make comments, we did explain that this was simply an opportunity to review the evidence and provide an extended summary to their appeal, but new grounds of appeal would not be considered.
While I note the appellant says they would like the operator to provide the cost for the infringement that allegedly causes £60 -£100 of financial of damage to the landlord. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, Parking Eye-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.” The decision that the parking charge was allowable relied on clear signage in the relevant car park. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Having reviewed the signage I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Section 18 of the BPA and the signage at the site is “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the “adequate notice” of a driver entering this particular piece of land. On this basis, I am satisfied that the parking charge is acceptable after applying the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court in the Parking Eye-v-Beavis case.
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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.
While I appreciate that the appellant has attempted to comply with the terms and conditions by purchasing a ticket however, the signage states “All Pay & Display tickets must be clearly displayed & attached to the front windscreen of your vehicle with the time and date of expiry clearly visible… All users of this car park must purchase and display a valid ticket in their vehicle… PARKING CHARGE NOTICE: £100.00”. Therefore, by parking at the site and failing to clearly display the ticket, the appellant has breached the terms of the contract.
When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist says there were events beyond their control, setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. While I empathise with the appellant’s circumstances, it is simply not within my remit to allow an appeal under these circumstances. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant parked not displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
Thanks for your time.
I'm looking for advice on whether I should refuse to pay the PCN I was issued in November by City Permits, and go down the small claims route should they wish to do that.The POPLA assessor cites a case not relevant to my circumstance in their justification for their descision as I did not overstay the time I paid for - I forgot to display my ticket,but submitted evidence of paying for a ticket in my defence, promptly. I've included POPLA's 'Assessor supporting rational for decision' below.
To be honest with the amount of stress this is causing me, I was about to give up and pay the reduced fee of £60 which I assumed was still available while the appeal is being read by POPLA, but apparently it isn't. As City Permits are now demanding the full amount of £100, it has renewed my desire to stand up for myself in this matter - if there is any sense in doing so.
The appellant has identified himself as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event, as such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. When entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PRIVATE PROPERTY… CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. This land is strictly for the parking of motor vehicles that comply with the following conditions indicated below PAY & DISPLAY. Parking Enforcement in operation. Regulations relating to this carpark. All Pay & Display tickets must be clearly displayed & attached to the front windscreen of your vehicle with the time and date of expiry clearly visible… All users of this car park must purchase and display a valid ticket in their vehicle… PARKING CHARGE NOTICE: £100.00”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, observed parked at the site on 21 November 2019 at 13:31. All the vehicle was parked not displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket, the PCN has been issued.
The appellant states that they made the honest mistake of forgetting to display their ticket after purchasing it and have evidence of the ticket, which covers the entirety of the time they parked there. The appellant says though forgetting to display, they caused no financial loss to the landowner and have a clear conscience in having proved they paid for the time their vehicle was parked.
The appellant says the demand for £60 from the operator is unreasonable considering they submitted proof that they had paid the landowner the requisite amount for the time parked and have both the ticket and bank records to prove so. As evidence to support their appeal they have provided a photograph of their parking ticket.
After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant has commented on the evidence pack to support their original appeal. The appellant says they would advise that the operator should install signs at pedestrian exits of the car park along the lines of 'have you remembered to display your ticket'? and install far more visible signage around the car park than they currently have. They say it is currently inadequate and based on their experience the operator is obviously using its small print and inadequately displayed signage to ensnare honest customers of the car park who have paid the landlord the required amount to park there.
While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the signage, I cannot consider them now as these are new grounds of appeal. When POPLA invited the appellant to make comments, we did explain that this was simply an opportunity to review the evidence and provide an extended summary to their appeal, but new grounds of appeal would not be considered.
While I note the appellant says they would like the operator to provide the cost for the infringement that allegedly causes £60 -£100 of financial of damage to the landlord. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, Parking Eye-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.” The decision that the parking charge was allowable relied on clear signage in the relevant car park. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Having reviewed the signage I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Section 18 of the BPA and the signage at the site is “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the “adequate notice” of a driver entering this particular piece of land. On this basis, I am satisfied that the parking charge is acceptable after applying the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court in the Parking Eye-v-Beavis case.
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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.
While I appreciate that the appellant has attempted to comply with the terms and conditions by purchasing a ticket however, the signage states “All Pay & Display tickets must be clearly displayed & attached to the front windscreen of your vehicle with the time and date of expiry clearly visible… All users of this car park must purchase and display a valid ticket in their vehicle… PARKING CHARGE NOTICE: £100.00”. Therefore, by parking at the site and failing to clearly display the ticket, the appellant has breached the terms of the contract.
When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist says there were events beyond their control, setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. While I empathise with the appellant’s circumstances, it is simply not within my remit to allow an appeal under these circumstances. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant parked not displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
Thanks for your time.
0
Comments
-
Is there anything important in that slab of text you have thrown at us?
Sorry, I won't be reading it.
Suffice it to say that no-one pays a parking company just because a PoPLA is refused.0 -
Hi Keith,
Mainly the following regarding the case they are citing being to do with an over stay at a car park rather than forgetting to display a ticket.
"While I note the appellant says they would like the operator to provide the cost for the infringement that allegedly causes £60 -£100 of financial of damage to the landlord. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, Parking Eye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable."....
They go on to cite from the case...
"…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.”"0 -
so the issue here is that a pay and display ticket was bought but not displayed, so the driver failed to follow the parking rules, presumably the signage states the ticket must be displayed as well as being bought ?
so if you decide to not pay the £100 default tariff on the signs, what defence were you thinking of going with to your local court ?
bear in mind the pcn was for £100 and reduced to £60 for early payment , but as it wasnt paid early , so it reverted back to the £100 (shown on the pcn and the signage) which is what they want now that POPLA rejected your appeal0 -
Yes, the Beavis case effectively threw out the argument that the parking charge had to in some way reflect the loss incurred.everclear81 wrote: »Hi Keith,
Mainly the following regarding the case they are citing being to do with an over stay at a car park rather than forgetting to display a ticket.
"While I note the appellant says they would like the operator to provide the cost for the infringement that allegedly causes £60 -£100 of financial of damage to the landlord. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, Parking Eye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable."....
They go on to cite from the case...
"…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.”"0 -
Hi Redx,
My defence was going to be built around not having caused any financial loss to the owner of the car park, having paid for a ticket and left well within the time I paid for.
However, as KeithP has pointed out, the charge doesn't need to reflect a financial loss and with this precedent it seems that the law, if not decency would be on the side of City Permits.
Thanks for your help.0 -
Of course you should not pay them a penny, from what you have told us, a judge is very likely to find for you if they are daft enough to take this to court.
The Beavis v PE case differs from yours is that PE were in effect the landowners, they were paying £1,000 a week to London Land to farm the car park. Also, the The Beavis car park was free for two hours with no facility to pay for extra time. As yours P & D I do not see how the two are similar.
The adjudicator appears to have misdirected themselves here, Beavis appears to bear no relation to your case, why not complain to the Chief Adjudicator.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Unfortunately you don't seem to have come here before making your appeals to the scamming PPC or POPLA or you would not have sent those losing points.
Theoretically, and the way it should work is that the PPC would accept mitigation and the fact you had merely forgot to display the ticket should have been a reason to cancel.
But PPC's are not reasonable and think they hold all the trump cards, they are also greedy and most of them only make their ill gotten gains by your transgressions of their petty made up rules.
So your appeal to them was always going to fail.
POPLA are only supposed to monitor the PPC's adherence to the law (such as it exists with private parking) COP's, land ownership and contracts etc and the POFA.
The "reduced" PCN period is a bribe to get you to pay up and shut up.
The first mistake you made was to identify the driver, some PPC's fail on POFA and you can win at POPLA as they can't hold the keeper liable only the driver, but you blew that one.
You are now at the point of deciding whether to pay a scam charge (not recommended on here) or wait and see what happens after the barrage of stupid debt collector scrap paper they will send you.
As for possible court who knows they may try they may not that's a lottery but is winnable and you might get costs awarded to you for them wasting your time.
It's your call now but the newbies thread where you should have started has all the info.0 -
According to Companies House they have one employee and assets of c@ £2,500. So a tadpole.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
Get pics of the site and signage.
Find out who owns the land. Ask the council who pays the non-domestic business rates to get a good idea. If it goes to court, pay the Land Registry a few quid to get definitive proof.
Also check with the council to see if the PPC has obtained Advertising Consent for the signs. Not having it is a criminal offence.
Come back to this thread if you get a court claim.
Hit enter a few times to break up a huge wall of text so people can actually read it.
Complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
I did a simple search on here for 'City Permits'. I didn't read all the posts that came up, but the 10 or so I did read did not involve that company.
If The Deep is correct, this outfit may not be very litigious, hopefully not at all litigious.
Personally I'd sit it out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards