Appeal decison from POPLA No2

[Michael Browne]

 

21stDecember

 

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xx arising out of the presence at xx, on 17October 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx

 

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

 

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.

 

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

 

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

 

Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator. 21 December 2012

 

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

 

At 13.33 on 17 October2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because Operator’s employee could not see a valid permit on display in the vehicle with registration mark xx. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle. The Appellant does not appear to dispute this.

 

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are displayed on the site, and state that only valid permit holders may park in allocated bays, and that permits must be fully displayed in the windscreen. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that a parking charge notice may be issued.

 

The Appellant made representations but does not offer any submissions on the facts of the appeal.The Operator has, however, enclosed a copy of the Appellant’s representations,where the Appellant submitted that it was an oversight that the permit had been removed and not replaced into the vehicle. The Appellant therefore appears to admit that there was not a valid permit on display in the vehicle at the time the parking charge notice was issued.

 

The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection they sent, because no valid permit was displayed on the windscreen. The Operator submits that the photographs taken by the employee show that the permit was not visible.

 

Although the Appellant does not make any factual submissions whatsoever, he does make various legal submissions. One such submission is that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that the Operator has not actually suffered any losson this occasion.

 

A further point made by the Appellant in relation to whether the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss is that the charge is actually a penalty.

 

Another statement by the Appellant is that if the parking charge amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the amount of the loss should not change from £60 for the first 14days and rise to £100 thereafter.

 

In addition, the Appellant states that if the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss,the amount should vary for different breaches of the terms and conditions, for example parking over a white line or overstaying. 3 21 December 2012

 

The legal submissions of the Appellant set out above are not accepted. The Appellant parked the vehicle in the car park, thereby agreeing to the contractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. These included the condition that only permit holders may park in an allocated area, and that permits must be fully displayed.

 

Another term of the contract was that if the vehicle was parked without complying with the conditions of the contract, the motorist agreed to pay a parking charge of £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days). The Appellant appears to believe that the charge has been issued for breaching the contract, but in actual fact, the Operator is seeking to enforce the contract. This is by seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at The Crescent. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.

 

The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach, either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach and would need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

The Appellant not having disputed the facts, I must find as a fact that, at the material time, a valid permit was required to be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible.This was a breach of the terms and conditions.

 

Accordingly, on this particular occasion, the appeal must be refused.

 

Shona Watson

 

Assessor

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58637165&postcount=25

[johnjordan]

Oh well, that's another 30 quid wasted by the parking company

[lamma]

Was this in a public car park or in a private location where the vehicle was parked in a space owned/leased/rented ?

[Dublindel]

The fact that terms and conditions were displayed does not mean that those terms and conditions satisfy the law. It seems as though the BPA, the PPC's and POPLA, the family of muskateers have decided to ditch terms such as tresspass and pre-estimate of loss in favour of the word CHARGE. If you enter into an unfair contract, it does not mean it is binding, in fact, far from it. I guess the meeting between POPLA and the BPA sorted that denial together. I have only read two submissions from POPLA and already they have shown that they are 'The Puppet People'. Ignoring POPLA would not have helped but playing along has shown us all what we already heavily suspected. I have an appeal in with POPLA due to be decided by March 3rd. its based on a 10 minute grace period. I was there for 8 minutes. First time stamped pic 11.30 ticket 11.38. It's a no brainer really but PPC must have a plan. If I lose this which I suspect I will judging by form, then POPLA is sunk and left with zero credibility.

[johnjordan]

And the PPC have paid another £30+. If everyone that received one of these mickey mouse tickets appealed to the POPLA at £30 a time the lesson would soon be learnt.

[DBC]

It appears that in this particular case the resident's car-park was behind locked gates, only accessible with a key-fob. So why on earth were the PPC employed anyway when only residents can get into the car park?

[lamma]

The right to peaceful enjoyment trumps the signs. POPLA seems rabidly out of kilter to me.

[BankFodder]

No one should go to POPLA.

To do so is to give them credibility.

 

The have no legal status

They are not transparent.

They are not subject to the FOI Act.

 

Why is anyone bothering? Very foolish.

[Dublindel]

Going to POPLA is actually going to kill any credibility they think they have. Their assessments so far are inaccurate, embarrassing, unprofessional and a complete joke, but it makes for a good read. My turn soon.

[SURFBOY]

Going to POPLA is actually going to kill any credibility they think they have. Their assessments so far are inaccurate, embarrassing, unprofessional and a complete joke, but it makes for a good read. My turn soon.

Have to agree. These POPLA decisions are showing them up for the sham that they are (POPLA).

[Dublindel]

Since my last message I have found out that complaints to POPLA go to Nick Lester who is on the board of the BPA. This is turning into an avalanche of bad publicity for POPLA. ant wait to read the glaring errors in the next appeal rejection, otherwise known as Shonai(sms).