Tweet
An appeal rejected by POPLA.
I parked on a private care park for one hour. In short, the car park actually removed the parking eye for several weeks, due to road maintenance at a local golf club who own the car park. Due to members having no access to the golf club, they decided to allow members to park free of charge (hope this makes sense).
This was my main complaint to POPLA, and that no actual communication was given by the gold club / parking eye to give exact details of when the car park was free of charge. As a result I parked my car when the parking eye resumed normal business.
Below is the answer I received from POPLA's appeal, but it does not address the above complaint at all? I cannot make any sense of it and appears 'cut and paste'
Has anyone advice of what they would do next? Do I have a good enough appeal if this went to court?
Thanks, Stephen
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, it is evident that I must consider whether the signage at the location was sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who may wish to park. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. 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.” Within its response, the operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the location and a site map also which documents the signs placed around the car park in question. Additionally, I am satisfied that the parking charge sum is clearly visible and that the creditor is outlined. Therefore, I can only conclude that the signs are “conspicuous” and “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice and are sufficiently “clear” in order to meet the standard outlined by the Supreme Court as referred to above. 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. The operator has provided a system print out, that shows no record of the appellant’s vehicle registration details. As a result I am satisfied the appellant had not registered her vehicle for her stay. The operator has also included a witness statement from the club manager. This has met the requirements to confirm that there is a contract between the landowner and the operator. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator had the authority to issue parking charges on the day on the alleged contravention. Ultimately, I can only conclude that the appellant parked at the location and in doing so, they accepted the terms and conditions. By remained at the site for 1 hour and 5 minutes without purchasing a ticket, the appellant failed to meet these terms and conditions and so the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.
I parked on a private care park for one hour. In short, the car park actually removed the parking eye for several weeks, due to road maintenance at a local golf club who own the car park. Due to members having no access to the golf club, they decided to allow members to park free of charge (hope this makes sense).
This was my main complaint to POPLA, and that no actual communication was given by the gold club / parking eye to give exact details of when the car park was free of charge. As a result I parked my car when the parking eye resumed normal business.
Below is the answer I received from POPLA's appeal, but it does not address the above complaint at all? I cannot make any sense of it and appears 'cut and paste'
Has anyone advice of what they would do next? Do I have a good enough appeal if this went to court?
Thanks, Stephen
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, it is evident that I must consider whether the signage at the location was sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who may wish to park. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. 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.” Within its response, the operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the location and a site map also which documents the signs placed around the car park in question. Additionally, I am satisfied that the parking charge sum is clearly visible and that the creditor is outlined. Therefore, I can only conclude that the signs are “conspicuous” and “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice and are sufficiently “clear” in order to meet the standard outlined by the Supreme Court as referred to above. 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. The operator has provided a system print out, that shows no record of the appellant’s vehicle registration details. As a result I am satisfied the appellant had not registered her vehicle for her stay. The operator has also included a witness statement from the club manager. This has met the requirements to confirm that there is a contract between the landowner and the operator. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator had the authority to issue parking charges on the day on the alleged contravention. Ultimately, I can only conclude that the appellant parked at the location and in doing so, they accepted the terms and conditions. By remained at the site for 1 hour and 5 minutes without purchasing a ticket, the appellant failed to meet these terms and conditions and so the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.
Comment