Tweet
Urgent help -with comments on evidence uploaded by Civil Enforcement on POPLA appeal
I totally did not appreciate the number of people being given these parking fines, and wish i had searched the net earlier.....
We parked 2 cars in a Hotel Car Park in March, the day before a very personal funeral, so mind not totally on parking ticket.
Family member paid for their car and then used my phone to pay for my car. I received the text to confirm my vehicle registration, and one to state I could check my invoice/receipt. We left after at that time to finalize the funeral arrangements
3 weeks later the PCN arrived
We appealed to the operator with hindsight wish I had searched the web for advice!!
Appealed with
I appealed to POPLA with
The evidence submitted by Civil Enforcemant is 25 points as listed below
Documents Attached:
1. Photographic evidence
2. Phone and Pay transactions report
3. Copy of Appellant’s Call log
4. Copy of text messages from ‘Phone & Pay’
5. Copy of original Notice
6. Copy of the Appellant’s original appeal
Reference Documents:
7. Image plan
8. Supreme Court Judgment Parking Eye v Beavis - Summary
Signature:
RESPONSE TO POPLA APPEAL
1. There are many clear and visible signs displayed in the car park advising drivers of the
terms and conditions applicable when parking in the car park. Drivers are permitted to
park in the car park in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the
signage. These signs constitute an offer by us to enter into a contract with the drivers.
2. Our Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras recorded the Appellant’s
vehicle, registration number in the car park during the date and time shown on the front
summary sheet of this appeal.
3. There is more than adequate signage in the car park, as can be seen from the attached
site plan. Furthermore, the car park has sufficient lighting and warnings for the
Appellant to have acknowledged the signs, and which the Appellant accepted by their
actions.
4. We refer you to the Court of Appeal authority of Vine v Waltham Forest London
Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169 which states:
“the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen,
for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which
the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car
driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning”.
5. The nature of the relationship between the Appellant and our company is contractual.
The car park is private land and consequently drivers require permission before parking
on the land. The Company granted permission by way of making an offer in the signs
displayed in the car parks and the Appellant accepted that offer and the terms set out
on the signs by their conduct in parking on the land.
6. As previously stated, there was ample signage throughout the site, such that the
Appellant had an opportunity to read them, including signage at the entrance to the car
park.
7. The British Parking Association advises all motorists:
“Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks
or on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check
any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules
that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in
order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for
parking.”
Page3
8. When parking on private land a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the
conditions of parking, in return for permission to park. Therefore, the onus was on the
Appellant to ensure that they could abide by any clearly displayed conditions.
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - Our Charges
9. The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the recommended British
Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant the BPA code.
10. The Supreme Court, in their judgment of the recent Parking Eye v Beavis appeal,
stated that:
“…the charge does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.”
A summary of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis has been
included in the Operator’s evidence pack, but can also be accessed using the following link:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...ss-summary.pdf
11. We submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties’ rights
and obligations arising under the Contract. Furthermore, Lord Neuberger and Lord
Sumption asserted the following in the above Supreme Court judgment:
“Any imbalance in the parties’ rights did not arise ‘contrary to the requirements
of good faith’, because ParkingEye and the owners had a legitimate interest
in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay in order to efficiently manage the car
park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets.”
It would therefore be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine preestimation
of loss.
Page4
Additional Notes
12. The Notice was issued as the Appellant failed to purchase any parking for his vehicle,
registration XXXXXXXX. Please note that the Appellant had admitted to being the driver
on the day in question and does not dispute the duration of stay within the car park.
13. We refer you to the attached photographic evidence of the vehicle, captured by our
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, entering the car park at 16:52
and departing at 17:27 (total duration of 35 minutes).
14. Signage in the car park clearly states "PHONE AND PAY - PAYMENT MUST BE
MADE WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF ARRIVAL … you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of
arrival; (b) not overstay the purchased parking time; (c) provide your full, exact
registration number when making your payment. If you breach any of these
terms you will be charged £100."
Page5
15. The Appellant failed to purchase parking for his vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx, as can
be seen from the attached report which shows the vehicles that did purchase a parking
session on the day in question. The report also demonstrates that other drivers were
complying with the terms and conditions, and that the Phone and Pay service was in
good working order on the date of violation, despite the Appellant’s submissions that
the payment system was not working efficiently.
16. We refer to the Appellant’s comments that his wife registered his car with her mobile
number xxxxxxxxxand his son payed for the parking for both vehicles. Please find
enclosed Phone and Pay transaction report. We can confirm that Appellant’s son’s
vehicle registration xxxxxxxxx registered with mobile number xxxxxxxxx
successfully booked parking session on a day in question, however the Appellant’s
vehicle xxxxxxxxxx was not booked for parking.
17. We refer you to the Appellant’s call log (copy attached) at 17:05:25 the Appellant’s wife
called the Phone and Pay’s automated line (0141 404 0000) to book parking, and the
call ended as "Respond to the SMS prompt (VRM not transcribed)".Please note that the
Appellant provided in his original appeal (copy attached) the telephone number that
was used to try and book the parking session on the day in question.
18. The Appellant’s wife has opted to receive SMS messages from the Phone and Pay
service, including confirmation that a session has been booked, payment receipts, and
reminders before session expires.
19. We now refer you to the report of SMS text messages sent from Phone and Pay (copy
attached). At 17:08:49, the Appellant was sent the following SMS Reminder text
message advising: “To confirm your parking session and for security purposes
URGENTLY reply with your vehicle registration only.”
20. Whilst we acknowledge the Appellant’s submissions that his wife replied with his
vehicle registration, please note the that the parking session was not booked because
the payment was not authorised and we refer to the SMS text message at 17:25:41,
when the Appellant’s wife was sent the following SMS Reminder text message
advising: “Your payment for parking has not been authorised and you are NOT
currently booked to park. Please call to confirm your payment details.”
21. Despite receiving this, the Appellant’s wife did not call the automated line back (0141
404 0000), to book the parking session. We have attached a full report from ‘Phone
and Pay’ to demonstrate that other drivers were able to book parking sessions on the
day in question and that the system was working properly throughout the whole day.
However, it is clear from this that the failure to book a parking session on the day in
question was due to a user error, and not to a problem with the Phone and Pay service.
Page6
22. The terms are clearly stated on the signage, in the event that a driver fails to adhere to
the stated parking terms they will be charged at the Notice level. Signs clearly state that
“PHONE AND PAY - PAYMENT MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF
ARRIVAL. These terms apply 24 hours a day”, with no exceptions.
23. The grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice, and we have
deemed this incident to have exceeded the allowed grace period. Please note that
whilst we do not advertise the grace period on signage, it is compliant with the
guidance provided by the British Parking Association in their Code of Practice, which
states that motorists should be allowed 10 minutes in which to decide if they are going
to park or not.
24. There are many clear and visible sings in the car park, as evidenced by the attached
image plan. It should be noted that drivers have an obligation to check for signs when
parking on private land - the signs do not need to be placed directly in the position
where they parked, they simply must be placed throughout the site so that
drivers are given the chance to read them (BPA Code of Practice, 18.3)
25. Please note that we are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the
Appellant has admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle. Please note that Section
21.6 and 21.7 of the BPA code state that the Operator has up to 28 days to apply to the
DVLA, and once the registered keeper’s details have been obtained, the Operator has
a further 14 days in which to send the PCN.
26. The Appellant’s details as the registered keeper were obtained from the DVLA on
25/03/2018 and the PCN was two day later, on 27/03/2018.
----------------------------------------------
My comments are
We parked 2 cars in a Hotel Car Park in March, the day before a very personal funeral, so mind not totally on parking ticket.
Family member paid for their car and then used my phone to pay for my car. I received the text to confirm my vehicle registration, and one to state I could check my invoice/receipt. We left after at that time to finalize the funeral arrangements
3 weeks later the PCN arrived
We appealed to the operator with hindsight wish I had searched the web for advice!!
Appealed with
- family members statement shows that the money was taken from the bank account for the parking
- the bank statement extract and the text messages confirming car
I appealed to POPLA with
- family members statement shows that the money was taken from the bank account for the parking
- the bank statement extract and the text messages confirming car
- extract of the funeral notice- showing how personal it was
The evidence submitted by Civil Enforcemant is 25 points as listed below
Documents Attached:
1. Photographic evidence
2. Phone and Pay transactions report
3. Copy of Appellant’s Call log
4. Copy of text messages from ‘Phone & Pay’
5. Copy of original Notice
6. Copy of the Appellant’s original appeal
Reference Documents:
7. Image plan
8. Supreme Court Judgment Parking Eye v Beavis - Summary
Signature:
RESPONSE TO POPLA APPEAL
1. There are many clear and visible signs displayed in the car park advising drivers of the
terms and conditions applicable when parking in the car park. Drivers are permitted to
park in the car park in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the
signage. These signs constitute an offer by us to enter into a contract with the drivers.
2. Our Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras recorded the Appellant’s
vehicle, registration number in the car park during the date and time shown on the front
summary sheet of this appeal.
3. There is more than adequate signage in the car park, as can be seen from the attached
site plan. Furthermore, the car park has sufficient lighting and warnings for the
Appellant to have acknowledged the signs, and which the Appellant accepted by their
actions.
4. We refer you to the Court of Appeal authority of Vine v Waltham Forest London
Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169 which states:
“the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen,
for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which
the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car
driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning”.
5. The nature of the relationship between the Appellant and our company is contractual.
The car park is private land and consequently drivers require permission before parking
on the land. The Company granted permission by way of making an offer in the signs
displayed in the car parks and the Appellant accepted that offer and the terms set out
on the signs by their conduct in parking on the land.
6. As previously stated, there was ample signage throughout the site, such that the
Appellant had an opportunity to read them, including signage at the entrance to the car
park.
7. The British Parking Association advises all motorists:
“Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks
or on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check
any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules
that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in
order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for
parking.”
Page3
8. When parking on private land a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the
conditions of parking, in return for permission to park. Therefore, the onus was on the
Appellant to ensure that they could abide by any clearly displayed conditions.
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - Our Charges
9. The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the recommended British
Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant the BPA code.
10. The Supreme Court, in their judgment of the recent Parking Eye v Beavis appeal,
stated that:
“…the charge does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.”
A summary of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis has been
included in the Operator’s evidence pack, but can also be accessed using the following link:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...ss-summary.pdf
11. We submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties’ rights
and obligations arising under the Contract. Furthermore, Lord Neuberger and Lord
Sumption asserted the following in the above Supreme Court judgment:
“Any imbalance in the parties’ rights did not arise ‘contrary to the requirements
of good faith’, because ParkingEye and the owners had a legitimate interest
in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay in order to efficiently manage the car
park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets.”
It would therefore be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine preestimation
of loss.
Page4
Additional Notes
12. The Notice was issued as the Appellant failed to purchase any parking for his vehicle,
registration XXXXXXXX. Please note that the Appellant had admitted to being the driver
on the day in question and does not dispute the duration of stay within the car park.
13. We refer you to the attached photographic evidence of the vehicle, captured by our
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, entering the car park at 16:52
and departing at 17:27 (total duration of 35 minutes).
14. Signage in the car park clearly states "PHONE AND PAY - PAYMENT MUST BE
MADE WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF ARRIVAL … you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of
arrival; (b) not overstay the purchased parking time; (c) provide your full, exact
registration number when making your payment. If you breach any of these
terms you will be charged £100."
Page5
15. The Appellant failed to purchase parking for his vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx, as can
be seen from the attached report which shows the vehicles that did purchase a parking
session on the day in question. The report also demonstrates that other drivers were
complying with the terms and conditions, and that the Phone and Pay service was in
good working order on the date of violation, despite the Appellant’s submissions that
the payment system was not working efficiently.
16. We refer to the Appellant’s comments that his wife registered his car with her mobile
number xxxxxxxxxand his son payed for the parking for both vehicles. Please find
enclosed Phone and Pay transaction report. We can confirm that Appellant’s son’s
vehicle registration xxxxxxxxx registered with mobile number xxxxxxxxx
successfully booked parking session on a day in question, however the Appellant’s
vehicle xxxxxxxxxx was not booked for parking.
17. We refer you to the Appellant’s call log (copy attached) at 17:05:25 the Appellant’s wife
called the Phone and Pay’s automated line (0141 404 0000) to book parking, and the
call ended as "Respond to the SMS prompt (VRM not transcribed)".Please note that the
Appellant provided in his original appeal (copy attached) the telephone number that
was used to try and book the parking session on the day in question.
18. The Appellant’s wife has opted to receive SMS messages from the Phone and Pay
service, including confirmation that a session has been booked, payment receipts, and
reminders before session expires.
19. We now refer you to the report of SMS text messages sent from Phone and Pay (copy
attached). At 17:08:49, the Appellant was sent the following SMS Reminder text
message advising: “To confirm your parking session and for security purposes
URGENTLY reply with your vehicle registration only.”
20. Whilst we acknowledge the Appellant’s submissions that his wife replied with his
vehicle registration, please note the that the parking session was not booked because
the payment was not authorised and we refer to the SMS text message at 17:25:41,
when the Appellant’s wife was sent the following SMS Reminder text message
advising: “Your payment for parking has not been authorised and you are NOT
currently booked to park. Please call to confirm your payment details.”
21. Despite receiving this, the Appellant’s wife did not call the automated line back (0141
404 0000), to book the parking session. We have attached a full report from ‘Phone
and Pay’ to demonstrate that other drivers were able to book parking sessions on the
day in question and that the system was working properly throughout the whole day.
However, it is clear from this that the failure to book a parking session on the day in
question was due to a user error, and not to a problem with the Phone and Pay service.
Page6
22. The terms are clearly stated on the signage, in the event that a driver fails to adhere to
the stated parking terms they will be charged at the Notice level. Signs clearly state that
“PHONE AND PAY - PAYMENT MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF
ARRIVAL. These terms apply 24 hours a day”, with no exceptions.
23. The grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice, and we have
deemed this incident to have exceeded the allowed grace period. Please note that
whilst we do not advertise the grace period on signage, it is compliant with the
guidance provided by the British Parking Association in their Code of Practice, which
states that motorists should be allowed 10 minutes in which to decide if they are going
to park or not.
24. There are many clear and visible sings in the car park, as evidenced by the attached
image plan. It should be noted that drivers have an obligation to check for signs when
parking on private land - the signs do not need to be placed directly in the position
where they parked, they simply must be placed throughout the site so that
drivers are given the chance to read them (BPA Code of Practice, 18.3)
25. Please note that we are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the
Appellant has admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle. Please note that Section
21.6 and 21.7 of the BPA code state that the Operator has up to 28 days to apply to the
DVLA, and once the registered keeper’s details have been obtained, the Operator has
a further 14 days in which to send the PCN.
26. The Appellant’s details as the registered keeper were obtained from the DVLA on
25/03/2018 and the PCN was two day later, on 27/03/2018.
----------------------------------------------
My comments are
- Photos of car park are old and from 2017 ... showing parking signs everywhere
- NOTABLY both the operator and POPLA have omitted to take into account that the payment was taken from the account, but their system did not allocate it to my car.
- Their evidence shows an extract showing their system taking payments from other motorists including my family members car., but not my call , so where has the money for my car gone?? Sounds like its not been allocated by their system
- The evidence the operator submitted was both the unsuccessful and successful attempts. However their system does no show my car only my family members car.
- Further, I frequented that car park at least 2 other times in the next 48 hours since we were booked to stay for 2 nights and there has been no other PCN notices so was my car registered after all??
Comment