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.
Parking Fine appeal rejected
Options
somesue
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi Everyone
I have received a fine for non display of my parking permit. I appealed on the basis that I am the legal owner and I wasn't aware that the permit was not on display.
I appealed to POPLA who have refused my appeal, on the basis that by parking in my legally owned space I have agreed to the terms and conditions.
I really don't know whether to pay now, as I am worried I may incur a CCJ. From the forums and advice I have read I see that they may have no legal right to charge me for parking?? Any advise would be appreciated.
The Operator issued parking charge notice number PM70105048 arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx, on 12 January 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx .
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.5760743845 2 29 May 2013
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 12 January 2013 the Operator’s employee observed a black Toyota with the vehicle registration mark xxxxxx parked at Viridian Square, Aylesbury. At 06:01 the employee issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’).
The Operator submits that the terms and conditions for parking advertised at the site included the condition that a valid permit must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times. The terms advised that failure to obey may lead to the issuing of a PCN. The Operator’s employee observed that the vehicle was not displaying a valid permit and issued a PCN for breach of the aforementioned condition. The Operator’s evidence includes photographs taken by its employee which show that no permit was displayed in the vehicle’s front windscreen or dashboard.
The Appellant submits that the PCN was issued for being “parked without a permit”. The Appellant submits that, on the contrary, has proven that she has a valid permit. The Appellant further submits that she was parked in the allocated parking space and that none of the terms and conditions relied upon by the Operator were communicated to her when she purchased the vehicle.
I note from the Appellant’s correspondence with the Operator that, in an email of 22 January 2013, she indicated that on the occasion in question her permit had “fallen off the windscreen down the side of the driver[’]s footwell.”
The Operator rejected those representations on the basis that a permit was not displayed within the meaning of the terms and conditions. The Operator also submitted that owners of property at the site were made aware of the terms and conditions by way of a letter containing their parking permits.
Taking into consideration all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Operator has proven this breach for 3 reasons:
1. It is not disputed that no permit was displayed. The appeal turns upon a single issue: was it a condition of parking that a valid permit be displayed?
2. The Operator submitted that it was a clearly advertised condition of parking that a valid permit be displayed in the front windscreen. This was also stipulated in the letter accompanying permits issued to residents like the Appellant. The Appellant does not dispute this. For a parking contract to be formed the terms and conditions must be adequately advertised and agreed. These terms are agreed to where, having had the opportunity to consider those conditions, a motorist parks. The motorist agrees to pay a parking charge in the event that those conditions are breached;
3. On the evidence before me, the Appellant does not dispute that the aforementioned conditions were advertised where she parked. By parking, she greed to abide by the requirement to display a valid permit. On this occasion no permit was displayed and she is therefore liable for the parking charge.
Taking these matters together the PCN was properly issued.
The appeal is refused.
I have received a fine for non display of my parking permit. I appealed on the basis that I am the legal owner and I wasn't aware that the permit was not on display.
I appealed to POPLA who have refused my appeal, on the basis that by parking in my legally owned space I have agreed to the terms and conditions.
I really don't know whether to pay now, as I am worried I may incur a CCJ. From the forums and advice I have read I see that they may have no legal right to charge me for parking?? Any advise would be appreciated.
The Operator issued parking charge notice number PM70105048 arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx, on 12 January 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx .
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.5760743845 2 29 May 2013
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 12 January 2013 the Operator’s employee observed a black Toyota with the vehicle registration mark xxxxxx parked at Viridian Square, Aylesbury. At 06:01 the employee issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’).
The Operator submits that the terms and conditions for parking advertised at the site included the condition that a valid permit must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times. The terms advised that failure to obey may lead to the issuing of a PCN. The Operator’s employee observed that the vehicle was not displaying a valid permit and issued a PCN for breach of the aforementioned condition. The Operator’s evidence includes photographs taken by its employee which show that no permit was displayed in the vehicle’s front windscreen or dashboard.
The Appellant submits that the PCN was issued for being “parked without a permit”. The Appellant submits that, on the contrary, has proven that she has a valid permit. The Appellant further submits that she was parked in the allocated parking space and that none of the terms and conditions relied upon by the Operator were communicated to her when she purchased the vehicle.
I note from the Appellant’s correspondence with the Operator that, in an email of 22 January 2013, she indicated that on the occasion in question her permit had “fallen off the windscreen down the side of the driver[’]s footwell.”
The Operator rejected those representations on the basis that a permit was not displayed within the meaning of the terms and conditions. The Operator also submitted that owners of property at the site were made aware of the terms and conditions by way of a letter containing their parking permits.
Taking into consideration all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Operator has proven this breach for 3 reasons:
1. It is not disputed that no permit was displayed. The appeal turns upon a single issue: was it a condition of parking that a valid permit be displayed?
2. The Operator submitted that it was a clearly advertised condition of parking that a valid permit be displayed in the front windscreen. This was also stipulated in the letter accompanying permits issued to residents like the Appellant. The Appellant does not dispute this. For a parking contract to be formed the terms and conditions must be adequately advertised and agreed. These terms are agreed to where, having had the opportunity to consider those conditions, a motorist parks. The motorist agrees to pay a parking charge in the event that those conditions are breached;
3. On the evidence before me, the Appellant does not dispute that the aforementioned conditions were advertised where she parked. By parking, she greed to abide by the requirement to display a valid permit. On this occasion no permit was displayed and she is therefore liable for the parking charge.
Taking these matters together the PCN was properly issued.
The appeal is refused.
0
Comments
-
This POPLA decision is not binding on you for starters. So you can now ignore PE and if PE is daft enough to try court then some on here and over at pepipoo will help you chase them away with out any need for you to attend small claims. You should have come here first before you went to POPLA and there is little doubt the advice and guidance from some on here would have meant your POPLA appeal being upheld. As it is, ignore from now on til the unlikely event PE tries court. Possible though improbable.Got a ticket from ParkingEye? Seek advice by clicking here: Private Parking forum on MoneySavingExpert.:j0
-
They would be absolutely mad to attempt court in this case, you are the bloody owner of the place you park in, what possible loss have YOU suffered? Sometimes popla decisions are nuts, turning down an appeal by the landowner of some poxy made upo rule just shows how inconsistent they are.
Ignore everything apart from a court claim, which if they are stupid enough to make one, the guys over on pepipoo.com would gladly help you with this.When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
Which company was it?
You musnt pay Them as they have no case.
You own the space. End of.Proud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T0 -
Your appeal to POPLA was probably not strong enough in terms of whether anyone has the right to impose conditions to park in YOUR space (which they probably don't). Or the basis of loss to the landowner (you).
Just ignore them now. They can't possibly win if they were to take it further.0 -
Thank you for your replies....you've concreted my decision - I will not pay it out of principle!
The company were Parking Control Management......0 -
Thank you for your replies....you've concreted my decision - I will not pay it out of principle!
The company were Parking Control Management......
What made me think it was PE?
Got a ticket from ParkingEye? Seek advice by clicking here: Private Parking forum on MoneySavingExpert.:j0 -
Sadly POPLA ignores the law & goes along with the myth of the whole PPC business model that an arbitrary penal charge can be made for a breach of a contract.
In law any damages for breach of contract must be a genuine pre-esitmate of losses. So called penalty clauses do not actually exist in English contract law.
For example if I buy a car & in the contract there is a clause that kicks in if there is late delivery then the only payment that I am entitled to is what it costs me to hire a car until my car is actually delivered. If there was a clause that in the case of late delivery I would receive £5K this would be unenforceable unless that really is the cost of hiring a car.0 -
Sue ignore pcm from now onProud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T0
-
Sadly POPLA ignores the law & goes along with the myth of the whole PPC business model that an arbitrary penal charge can be made for a breach of a contract.
In law any damages for breach of contract must be a genuine pre-esitmate of losses. So called penalty clauses do not actually exist in English contract law.
For example if I buy a car & in the contract there is a clause that kicks in if there is late delivery then the only payment that I am entitled to is what it costs me to hire a car until my car is actually delivered. If there was a clause that in the case of late delivery I would receive £5K this would be unenforceable unless that really is the cost of hiring a car.
If you look at post #48 here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=3 there is light on the horizon ! Precisely Nigel's point used in an appeal that was successful. A must for inclusion on future POPLA advice.0 -
The fact that charges claimed are not a genuine pre-estimate of losses is a point we make in all the proper POPLA challenges.If you look at post #48 here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=3 there is light on the horizon ! Precisely Nigel's point used in an appeal that was successful. A must for inclusion on future POPLA advice.
However don't take that one ruling as a cause for celebration that POPLA is finally interpreting contract law correctly. It was only won by default because the PPC was so arrogant that they didn't even bother to try & properly justify their position but claimed without offering any evidence thatthe charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss; that it is within the BPA guidelines; and, that the sum is far less than the maximum penalty enforceable under the relevant railway byelaws.
By comparing their charges to a penalty they are actually shooting themselves in the foot as they try & pretend that the charge is very definitely not a penalty.
You can hear the assessor wriggling with the embarrassment at having to find in favour of the motorist with this postscriptIt ought to be made clear that I have found that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, not that the charge is not in fact a genuine pre-estimate of loss.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K 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