Jump to content


Parking Eye PCN Cockhedge Park St Helens POPLA rejected my claim


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1617 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone

 

I sent a claim to POPLA and I got the decision on the 12th September. I will post the decision below, I just want to know if there's anything more I can do or should I just pay it.

 

Thanks

Andrew

 

Decision:

 

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter.

 

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator.

The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site.

 

 

The appellant further states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915.

 

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Parking Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued are done so out of the driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract by parking the vehicle on relevant land.

 

 

Upon review of the information provided in relation to this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified.

As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the strict requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper.

 

 

After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections set out in PoFA, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA.

 

 

As a result, the keeper is now liable for the charge.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, registration number 0000000, entering the car park at 12:19, and exiting at 15:20, totalling a stay of three hours.

 

 

The operator states that it has issued the PCN as the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter.

 

 

The appellant states that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator.

Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators,

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).

 

 

The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for.

 

 

In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

 

 

The operator has provided evidence of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming that an agreement has been in place effective from the 4th January 2016 for a period of 36 months.

 

 

As the PCN was issued on the 25th May 2016, I am satisfied that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention.

 

 

The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site.

 

 

When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period.

The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.

 

 

Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs

“must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

 

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states

“2 Hour Free Stay: If you want to stay longer, parking tariffs then apply and a ticket must be purchased: Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

 

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map establishing the locality of the 61 signs in place throughout the car park.

 

 

I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA.

While I acknowledge the appellant has concerns regarding planning permission to erect signage, I do not consider this necessary to the particular case.

 

 

When looking at appeals, POPLA must consider whether the motorist complied with the terms and conditions of the car park, and whether the PCN was issued correctly.

 

 

The appellant states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915.

The case of Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915 was an appeal heard in the House of Lords over one hundred years ago.

As such, I have not considered this case to be relevant, as the precedent set in regards to parking charges has been reviewed more recently by the Supreme Court, in the case of ParkingEye-v-Beavis.

 

 

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”.

 

 

Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

 

 

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.

 

 

Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter.

 

 

As such, the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

The operator has complied with PoFA, and the keeper is now liable for the charge.

Based on the evidence provided, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Edited by dx100uk
line spacing - dx

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

whats the offence when where how ...

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx100uk

 

The offence is over-staying the free stay period. It was at the Cockhedge Shopping Park site in St Helens and the period was from 12:19 to 15:20. 25th May 2016

 

My mum bought a ticket but put the wrong registration on it, so I guess their system didn’t know about the car and give her a fine. But at the time we appealed we couldn’t find the ticket so I just went with the case mentioned above in the assessor summary.

 

That case worked for another appeal back in 2015 I did but I think because of the supreme court case that’s mentioned in the decision, the Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915 is no longer listened too.

 

I can upload the information sent to POPLA from Parking Eye if it will help.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

who is the parking co?

As POPLA no longer show the operator evidence to the appellant we dont know if they do have a proper contract with the landowner or whether it is just with an agent (allowed in BPA world but not in law so that is a problem in the making) and also they always dismiss out of hand the lack of planning permission when it is an absolute offence and you cannot form a criminal compact with the parking co, even if you agree to.

 

Post up the original NTK if you still have it,

we can often find fault where POPLA dont as the wording must be exact, not just showing an intention.

 

 

POPLA's hands are tied by their deal with the BPA so this is not the end of the matter.

Sight of the sign at the entrance to the car park will help us form an opinion as to whether it is a contract or an invitation to treat.

 

 

the numerous signs around the car park are really irrelevant if they differ even slightly from the one at the entrance or refer to other signs or conditions.

 

Also, the prescribed fee was paid,

the ticket machine entry is really irrelevant as they are known to be inaccurate and probably outside the law's requirements of being of the approved type.

 

So, what to do?

well I wouldnt be paying anything,

gather your evidence and post it here adn wel will advise as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of defeating the claim in a proper court setting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by "who is the parking co" or the "original NTK" ericsbrother. All I've got is the case evidence that parking eye give POPLA.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you attach that as a direct PDF please

go advanced

Manage attachments

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

in short,

the sigange isnt a contract but an "invitation to treat".

By staying and not paying you are a trespasser and that is between you and the landlord.

 

the very small print is the contract, not the big signs you can take it or leave it.

 

What to do next?

Ask the local council if PE have planning permission for their sigange, machines and cameras under the advertsing hoardings regs of the Town and Counrty Planning Act 2007.

If they dont then they cant form a contract anyway

When you get an answwer from the council come back here and tell us what it was verbatim.

 

PE will undoubtedly now send you a new bill,

dont pay it if you intend to continue this battle as they will lost a court claim but the above planning matter may well bury them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got a judgement today for £200 for non payment of 50p ticket...yes? The judge refused reference to BPA code of practice as it was not law, judge asked "is it law"? Additionally, when I made reference to case law the judge asked "can I view your copy of the case law"? I didn't have any copies of the case law with me. So to sum up take a copy of any case law you make reference to and only refer to BPA code of practice if it's in law. I made reference to ParkingEye v Cargius which held that ParkingEye v Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid rather than free, the judge wanted to see a copy. I made reference to Vine v Waltham LBC, the judge wanted to see a copy, therefore could not be used as a defence.

Judge said we could not appeal. Does anyone have any advice were we can take this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just got a judgement today for £200 for non payment of 50p ticket...yes? The judge refused reference to BPA code of practice as it was not law, judge asked "is it law"? Additionally, when I made reference to case law the judge asked "can I view your copy of the case law"? I didn't have any copies of the case law with me. So to sum up take a copy of any case law you make reference to and only refer to BPA code of practice if it's in law. I made reference to ParkingEye v Cargius which held that ParkingEye v Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid rather than free, the judge wanted to see a copy. I made reference to Vine v Waltham LBC, the judge wanted to see a copy, therefore could not be used as a defence.

Judge said we could not appeal. Does anyone have any advice were we can take this?

 

You need to start a new thread

Of your own

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ericsbrother

 

How would I go about contacting the local council?

 

Is there any templates for asking about planning permission and where would I find the address?

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but this is what happens when you go unprepared. If you had asked for help when you first got the demand from the parking co you could have easily defeated this claim. you now have the choice of going for a set aside based on proof of lack of planning permission so impossibility to enter into contract at all (read about that) or paying up.

Just got a judgement today for £200 for non payment of 50p ticket...yes? The judge refused reference to BPA code of practice as it was not law, judge asked "is it law"? Additionally, when I made reference to case law the judge asked "can I view your copy of the case law"? I didn't have any copies of the case law with me. So to sum up take a copy of any case law you make reference to and only refer to BPA code of practice if it's in law. I made reference to ParkingEye v Cargius which held that ParkingEye v Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid rather than free, the judge wanted to see a copy. I made reference to Vine v Waltham LBC, the judge wanted to see a copy, therefore could not be used as a defence.

Judge said we could not appeal. Does anyone have any advice were we can take this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it have to be a long winded request I need to send to the council? or could I just put something like:

 

Dear Sir/madam

 

I would like to request a copy of the planning permission for Parking Eye at the Cockhedge Park, St Helens, WA1 000. I am currently disputing a Parking Charge Notice and need to see the planning permission to see if they can enforce it.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

read the other threads about planning,

particularly the Mansfield thread so you get the wording of the law you are asking about right.

 

 

A sloppy request will not be taken seriously,

they need to know what it is you are on about.

 

 

do not limit your request to PE,

the landowner or occupier also have a liability so may have applied on PE's behalf.

 

Also, dont say you are disputing a parking charge, you will certainly get an unhelpful reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...