private parking charges

[ostell]

Just sit and wait. See if it progresses to court, probably will but a judge will be more amenable to your reasonable arguments and the previous cases.

What did POPLA say about not giving the invitation correctly?

[spikey43]

Hi there. POPLA decision was as follows

The appellant’s case is that they were genuine customers on site and paid to park. They state they paid to park for 3 hours from 10:11 until 13:12. They state that the PCN states they did not pay to park, but this is untrue. The appellant adds that the operator has not allowed the grace period of 10 minutes in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. He states that the PCN also advises that they remained on site for 26 minutes without payment, which he claims is factually incorrect. He states the ANPR only shows time entered and exiting and not time parked on site. He states the entire time at the end of the parking event was spent leaving the site. He states there was exceptional traffic at a standstill and this caused the delay. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Parking Tariffs Apply from 8.00am. 1 hour £2.20. 2 hours £3.80. 3 hours £6.00…Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions may result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 10:01, and exiting at 13:27, totalling a stay of 3 hours 26 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not pay for their full time on site. The appellant explains that they were genuine customers on site and paid to park. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and appreciate he has not confirmed he was the driver on the day of the breach, as such I must consider if the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act (POFA 2012). I have reviewed the PCN and note that the breach occurred on 1st August 2020 and the PCN was issued on 6th August 2020, well within the 14 days required under POFA. The PCN goes on to state that if after 29 days the PCN remains unpaid and the drivers name and address has not been provided, then it has the right to pursue the keeper for the PCN, as such, I find that the operator has fully complied with the requirements of POFA. They state they paid to park for 3 hours from 10:11 until 13:12. They state that the PCN states they did not pay to park, but this is untrue. I note the further comments made and appreciate the appellants concerns. I have reviewed the PCN and must make it clear that the reason the PCN was issued was for unpaid tariff time, it does not stipulate that he did not pay to park, rather the amount paid did not cover their time on site. I note, as stated, the appellant purchased 3 hours parking at 10:11, 10 minutes after entering the site. The BPA Code of Practice 13.1 States: The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. It then goes on to state in 13.2: The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. Whilst I do appreciate that the site was busy and it took them time to park, this must be factored into any payment made to cover their arrival time on site, not just the time they parked in a parking bay. The appellant adds that the operator has not allowed the grace period of 10 minutes in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. I note that the appellant remained on site for a total of 3 hours 26 minutes, the BPA allows a grace period of at least 10 minutes on site depending on size and location, even if this was doubled, the appellant still remained on site in excess of this. As such, I find that the operator has allowed more than enough grace period on site. He states that the PCN also advises that they remained on site for 26 minutes without payment, which he claims is factually incorrect. He states the ANPR only shows time entered and exiting and not time parked on site. I appreciate the appellants comments, but I must agree with the operator and note that the appellant did remain on site for 26 minutes longer than they paid for. I do appreciate that he paid for the first 3 hours and perhaps this is what the appellant is referring to. ANPR cameras on every site are designed to monitor entry and exit times, none of them will monitor vehicles parked in a parking bay, that is why there is a grace period allowed, in case more time is required to leave, as is the case with the appellant. I have reviewed the signage on site and it makes it clear what the tariffs are for the duration of the stay, it is the responsibility of the motorist to pay for their full time on site, not just their time in a parking bay. If this was the case people would park on site, pay some 5 hours later for 1 hours parking and then leave. He states the entire time at the end of the parking event was spent leaving the site. He states there was exceptional traffic at a standstill and this caused the delay. I note the final comments made and appreciate that the site is prone to traffic due to it’s location, and I also appreciate that the entrance/exit is up/down a winding road that can only really accommodate one vehicle at a time. I do not dispute that at busy periods it can take more time to leave the site, but the appellant remained on site for 26 minutes longer without paying to do so. He should have either left sooner as to not exceed the time paid for or purchase more time if he could see the traffic at a stand still again, as to ensure he was covered for the full time on site. POPLA’s remit is to assess the validity of the PCN. Whilst I do not dispute the appellants grounds of appeal, it is unclear how far the traffic tailback was as no evidence of this has been provided. I find that the appellant would have been aware of the parking time as he paid electronically and had the expiry time on his person. I must re-iterate that if he knew he was going to exceed the paid time, he should have purchased more time before exiting the site. As the appellant remained on site for 3 hours 26 minutes and only paid for 3 hours parking, I must conclude that the PCN was issued accordingly. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site. It has provided images of the signage on site which are clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. I note the further comments made by the appellant after reviewing the operator’s evidence and believe most of this has already been covered in my decision above. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge does not reflect reasonable loss. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to pay for their full time on site. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

[ostell]

Just sit tight and wait for the letter before claim.

Re the increase. Have a look at this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0