ASDA Car Park Fine

[Dominique]

Hi All,

I was wondering if you could help me appeal a car parking fine that I have been given in an Asda car park in Manchester. Apparently there were signs in the car park stating that you couldn't park there for longer that 3hours, but I didn't notice these and was parked there for 4hours. The reason for this is because I was passing time in between two meetings I had in the area and was working from the Asda café where I had my lunch and brought drinks throughout the time and I also did more shopping in the supermarket. This is why I am angry I have been given this fine as I was spending money in the store throughout the time I was there and they have repaid me by giving me a fine.

Do you think I have a case for this or not?

I have already appealed my case they wont accepted it.

Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Hi All,

I was wondering if you could help me appeal a car parking fine that I have been given in an Asda car park in Manchester. Apparently there were signs in the car park stating that you couldn't park there for longer that 3hours, but I didn't notice these and was parked there for 4hours. The reason for this is because I was passing time in between two meetings I had in the area and was working from the Asda café where I had my lunch and brought drinks throughout the time and I also did more shopping in the supermarket. This is why I am angry I have been given this fine as I was spending money in the store throughout the time I was there and they have repaid me by giving me a fine.

Do you think I have a case for this or not?

I have already appealed my case they wont accepted it.

Thanks

Do you have a popla code with the appeal rejection ?

M1

[paulajayne]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

BTW It is not a FINE. just an invoice.
As above do you have a POPLA number?

[Rudi von Sternberg]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Its a speculative invoice (begging letter) ignore it, you only pay if its from the police or local authority . They can only sue you for damages, ie what damage did you do to the car park. Had the same problem in Dunstable when I bought a sandwich from ASDA last year

[ostell]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Its a speculative invoice (begging letter) ignore it, you only pay if its from the police or local authority . They can only sue you for damages, ie what damage did you do to the car park. Had the same problem in Dunstable when I bought a sandwich from ASDA last year

This is not a good plan, they can come back and issue court proceedings. Mr R-V-S has not been reading the rest of this forum and has definitely not read POFA 2012 legislation.

Who was the company issuing the charge? Best bet is to go into ASDA and find the manager (not the people on customer service) and complain loudly to try and get him/her to cancel the charge. Keep any receipts etc that you have from the visit.

Edit: Should have read the OP fully.

[Dominique]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

I don't think I have a POPLA code with the rejection, just my Parking Charge Notice number. Will this affect me?

[ostell]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Perhaps if you post up the rejection letter with your personal details removed then others may find it.

[Dominique]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

[IMG]Car Fine[/IMG]

[Dominique]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Would the code be XXXXXXXXXX?

[Kati]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Would the code be XXXXXXXXXX?

It could well be ... I believe POPLA codes are 10 digits long

• A three digit identifier for the parking company (e.g. 606 is ParkingEye)
• A three digit number which identifies the day of the year made (e.g. 001 is 1st January, 040 is 9th February etc)
• A single digit year identifier (e.g. 4 is 2014, 5 is 2015)
• A three digit identifier to identify the case for that parking company on that day (e.g. 001 is 1st, 100 is 100th)

[Dominique]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Yes this is the correct code then, where do I go from here?

[Kati]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Yes this is the correct code then, where do I go from here?

Your next step would be to appeal to POPLA. [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] is great at sorting out the appeal letters, I'm sure he will be along to help soon

[mystery1]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

What company is it please ?

M1

[Dominique]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

Smart Park their called

[mystery1]

Re: ASDA Car Park Fine

I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds.




1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.




2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.




3. Smart parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.



4. Smart parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.




5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.






1.The charges are penalties.


The charges are represented as a breach of contract. Whilst it is disputed that a contract was entered into (see point 2) according to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"


£100 is clearly not proportionate when parking initially is free. In fact the driver purchased a meal with drinks and then went on to shop in store thus creating extra profit for the store and as such it is not commercially justified. The car park wasn't full so there was no intial loss. As this is clearly a trespass scenario, although not described as such, the charges in law need to be a genuine pre estimate of loss.


I require Smart parking to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. Smart parking cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.


According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner does not impose a parking fee for the area in question , there is no loss to Smart parking nor the landowner. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''


The signs state that the £100 charge is to deter abuse which is clearly in line with the law on penalties and the charge, being a penalty, is unenforceable. CEL v McCafferty.




2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


I did not see any signs at the site. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence. In any event the signs state that the £100 charge is to deter abuse.


3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi




Smart parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Smart parking has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Smart parking to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.


In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.


So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Smart parking and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/d8670de1426e...&alloworigin=1


In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'


I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. Smart parking cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.


I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.


It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."


The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."


In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.


4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.


The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.




5. ANPR ACCURACY


This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.


So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case o fmy vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.






M1