Tweet
In my appeal to POPLA my main points of argument were:
1. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
2. Inappropriate parking charge
So I'm left in the situation where the parking operator has not provided evidence that they have the legal right to peruse parking charge notices on this site. The operator has also not supplied evidence on how the fine represents the loss suffered by the landowner. However, POPLA still ruled in favour of the operator?
I have included the report below - please let me know if I should omit any details in order to retain my anonymity.
My question is whether I should admit defeat and pay up or make a appearance in court if required? I'm unsure how strong of a case I have or whether it's worth taking a day off work for.
Many thanks for any advice!
--
Summary:
The appellant’s case is that he was visiting a friend who is a resident of the property. The appellant was provided with a guest parking permit and was advised by his friend that he was able to park in any of the guest parking spaces. The appellant does not feel that the amount of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.
Rational:
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “WARNING. Private land. … Vehicles must fully display a valid permit in the windscreen area and park within a marked bay allocated to the permit: Vehicles parking in bays marked “V” must display a “V” permit. Vehicles parking in bays marked “VW” must fully display a “VW” permit”. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that signs must be “easy to see, read and understand”. After reviewing the evidence of the signage, I am satisfied that these meet the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle from the date of the contravention, where it is clear that the vehicle is parked in a VW bay but displaying a V permit. As such, I am not satisfied that this permit is valid for the bay in which the vehicle is parked. The appellant has stated that he feels the amount of the PCN is “punitively high”. 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.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.
1. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
2. Inappropriate parking charge
So I'm left in the situation where the parking operator has not provided evidence that they have the legal right to peruse parking charge notices on this site. The operator has also not supplied evidence on how the fine represents the loss suffered by the landowner. However, POPLA still ruled in favour of the operator?
I have included the report below - please let me know if I should omit any details in order to retain my anonymity.
My question is whether I should admit defeat and pay up or make a appearance in court if required? I'm unsure how strong of a case I have or whether it's worth taking a day off work for.
Many thanks for any advice!
--
Summary:
The appellant’s case is that he was visiting a friend who is a resident of the property. The appellant was provided with a guest parking permit and was advised by his friend that he was able to park in any of the guest parking spaces. The appellant does not feel that the amount of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.
Rational:
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “WARNING. Private land. … Vehicles must fully display a valid permit in the windscreen area and park within a marked bay allocated to the permit: Vehicles parking in bays marked “V” must display a “V” permit. Vehicles parking in bays marked “VW” must fully display a “VW” permit”. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that signs must be “easy to see, read and understand”. After reviewing the evidence of the signage, I am satisfied that these meet the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle from the date of the contravention, where it is clear that the vehicle is parked in a VW bay but displaying a V permit. As such, I am not satisfied that this permit is valid for the bay in which the vehicle is parked. The appellant has stated that he feels the amount of the PCN is “punitively high”. 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.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.