Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 10th Jan 18, 10:50 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 1Thanks
    sirrah94
    Appealing to Popla - Help!
    • #1
    • 10th Jan 18, 10:50 PM
    Appealing to Popla - Help! 10th Jan 18 at 10:50 PM
    Hey,

    I'm currently in the process of having to appeal to popla, now a brief background on the situation. As registered keeper (however I'm unsure if i said registered or driver in the first appeal which was rejected). My partner lives in a gated estate with 3 blocks of apartments each apartment is assigned one parking space. There isn't any visitor parking and UKPC was put in place to stop people parking in the road which now means residents can't have visitors without the risk of getting a ticket. Now on the left hand side of a section of the road the curb is lowed and gravelled ( this doesn't lead to anywhere, it isn't a path its unused space between one of the apartment blocks and the road). Its big enough for a car and there aren't any signs to say the area is restricted apart from the UKPC signs which say no roadway parking but this area isn't in the road. Further up from this area there is a space off the road not gravelled but with a lowered curb its exactly the same line as the space mentioned before, both to the left not in the road.

    I've read the newbies thread and other posts but haven't come across one quite like my situation purely because its so stupid this estate was built without visitor parking! I've collated information but yet to form my appeal letter, i'm not sure I have enough evidence. I wondered if anyone could think of anything else I could add to the letter after reading my situation for appeal. I saw people talking about POFA 212 not sure if that applies to me, this is all very confusing and difficult and would really appreciate any help or advice if anyone has any haha.

    Many Thanks
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Jan 18, 10:57 PM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 23,271 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 10th Jan 18, 10:57 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Jan 18, 10:57 PM
    a popla appeal is based on legal arguments and post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread lists some of those legal arguments so construct your appeal from those including POFA2012

    SO POFA2012 failures (if any)
    any NTK failures on timeline , wording etc
    NO landowner authority
    POOR , INADEQUATE and FORBIDDING SIGNAGE
    any BPA CoP failures
    Not the same as BEAVIS

    thats just a few of them
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 10:57 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 10th Jan 18, 10:57 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Jan 18, 10:57 PM
    Did UKPC post a Notice to Keeper out to you? What date (NB, NOT the rejection letter).

    What date was the windscreen PCN?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 10th Jan 18, 11:07 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    • #4
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:07 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:07 PM
    Whats NB? Sorry I keep getting confused with all the abbreviations! The PCN was put on the car on the 10 November 2017, refection letter received on 22nd December 2017 ( I also have another for the same area which was the 19th November 2017, rejection letter received on 28 December 2017)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 11:10 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:10 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:10 PM
    Whats NB?
    Seriously? Having said that, I just asked my 17 yr old DS and he didn't know!

    Google is your friend.

    I didn't ask when the rejection letter was dated. I asked:

    Did UKPC post a Notice to Keeper out to you?
    I hoped you'd know this is the entire point of the tactics in the NEWBIES thread, of appealing on day 26 (it explains why).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 10th Jan 18, 11:18 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    • #6
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:18 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:18 PM
    Yes I did receive notice to keeper letter reason being I appealed and their website was malfunctioning and somehow changed my reference number without me realising so they never received the appeals?

    Assuming this isn't good?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 11:20 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:20 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:20 PM
    I don't understand?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 10th Jan 18, 11:31 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    • #8
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:31 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:31 PM
    When i first received the PCN and appealed to UKPC i entered the reference number on the appeal page, but the reference number somehow changed without me realising so they never received my appeal for that PCN.

    So they sent me the Notice to Keeper letter (thinking id ignored the fine, but my appeal never reached them) but anyway yes I did receive a notice to keeper letter
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 11:52 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:52 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Jan 18, 11:52 PM
    Sounds like they altered the VRN between the PCN and NTK. So did the PCN get the number-plate wrong?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 11th Jan 18, 12:08 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    No it!!!8217;s all correct, number plate etc I looked into it when I received the Notice to Keeper letter because I was waiting for an appeal response and then when I checked my emails noticed the number was wrong. So I then appealed the Notice to Keeper letters with the correct codes explaining what had happened.

    Does receiving this letter affect the appeal to popla?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 18, 12:15 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What gap between PCN and NTK, in days?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 11th Jan 18, 7:57 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    Ok so the first PCN there’s 33 days between the PCN and the Notice to Keeper I received the poplar appeal 39 days after that. (Note this one I did the first appeal in the time frame but they didn’t receive it)

    The second PCN I didn’t receive a Notice to Keeper, only the rejection letter to popla appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 18, 9:25 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Second one wins itself by day 56 then, dead easy!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 11th Jan 18, 10:22 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    Do you think it’s still worth appealing the first or pay that and appeal for the second? Sorry if I sound stupid thanks for the help so far!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 18, 12:47 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's UKPC. Not a single person here PAYS UKPC!!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 14th Jan 18, 10:53 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    Hi, ok so I have written my appeal and will copy below, I will be sending soon does this fit the bill?

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    I am appealing a parking charge writing as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX for the following reasons:

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

    2. The signs in this 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

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    LINK

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    LINK

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    LINK

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    LINK

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    LINK

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    LINK

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an underacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    Photo Evidence

    Below are photos taken by the parking charge operator showing the car parked NOT in a roadway like stated in the fine with no evidence to state the specific area is restricted.


    Also if I'm not sure if i said I was driver or registered keeper should I remove number 4? (I know I'm saying at the beginning that I am the registered keeper) and do I need to add any more about the personal issue being that I wasn't parked in the roadway as stated? And shall I add a couple of my own pictures or just leave it to the parking charger operators?

    Many thanks for all your help
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 18, 11:06 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's fine for the second one with no NTK.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 14th Jan 18, 11:39 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    Thank you, what shall I change for the one with NTK?? Take out that section? Not sure if there was something in the newbies thread that I may have missed
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 18, 12:02 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove #1 and #4 for the one with the NTK.

    Add an extra section (and photos embedded directly in the document, to both appeals) that deals with the fact there was no contravention of any offered contract, because POPLA will be obliged to consider if the PCN was properly given as a result of a 'relevant obligation' arising from a 'relevant contract', so POPLA must either find that:

    (a) the car was not parked on the 'roadway' as the appellant submits or, in the alternative
    (b) if POPLA find that these gravelled/lowered kerb laybys are part of the 'roadway' then the signs ban parking, and are prohibitive. 'NO ROADWAY PARKING' makes no offer capable of acceptance.

    The elements of a contract are missing - no consideration flows to or from the parking firm who (unlike in the Beavis case) offer no licence to park whatsoever. In Beavis there was consideration (a promise made, in exchange for a licence to use a valuable parking space) as held at 190: ''The quid pro quo provided by ParkingEye in return for Mr Beavis!!!8217;s promise was the grant of permission to park for up to two hours in its discretion free of charge, on conditions. Each party thus gave the other valuable consideration.''

    A prohibition on parking is entirely different, there can be no consideration here, as I am sure POPLA's 'Sector Expert' will concede. The lack of a 'quid pro quo' exchange between the parties means that any driver could only be pursued under the tort of trespass by the landowner itself, not by a parking firm not in possession of the land, as was confirmed in Beavis at 97: ''as it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass'' and at 190: ''ParkingEye was not in possession of the car park, or capable of bringing proceedings in trespass.''
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-01-2018 at 12:53 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sirrah94
    • By sirrah94 15th Jan 18, 12:14 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sirrah94
    Thanks so much I will get onto this tomorrow and post the second appeal to be sent on here, before sending to double check!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

68Posts Today

1,912Users online

Martin's Twitter