Parking Eye- Mayflower terminal short stay southampton ** PE Folded at POPLA **

[DragonFly1967]

Is this car park on the port itself?

[DragonFly1967]

Hang on folks...

 

I have a vague recollection of ParkingLie losing a case and being told in no uncertain terms not to bring any further cases for Port Authority land. Can anyone else remember it?

 

 

If I'm right and if this car park is inside the port gates, it will have its own byelaws and will not be relevant land for the purposes of the POFA and therefore there is no keeper liability. Only the Port Authority can take action, it's naff all to do with ParkingLie.

[DragonFly1967]

Looking at GSV, this is most definitely inside the port

[DragonFly1967]

Found it on Parking Pranksters site... Click here

[DragonFly1967]

One to keep under your hat for now. This is a previous POPLOL decision on Town Quay, Southampton. Which is also ABP land and is covered by exactly the same byelaws. The last paragraph is the important one for this case (highlighted).

 

 

POPLA Appeal Allowed 21st May 2015 (POPLA Reference 6060755093)

 

It is the Operator's case that their Terms and Conditions of parking ("the Terms") are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit the Appellant breached the Terms by failing to purchase the appropriate parking time and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge.

 

The Appellant has made several very strong submissions however it is only necessary to consider determine one area of dispute for the purposes of this appeal. This is the submission that the Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking charges on the land.

 

The Operator has not provided a copy of a contract between themselves and the Landowner which authorises them to operate at the site and to issue parking charges on the Landowner's behalf; nor have they provided a signed witness statement confirming the existence of such a contract. Therefore, I cannot find the parking charge to be enforceable by the Operator in this case.

 

I think it is important to add that I also accept the Appellant's submission that the land is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") because this was their main submission. I find that the land is subject to statutory control for the reasons given by the Appellant and therefore, by virtue of paragraph 3(1)© of Schedule 4 of POFA, the Operator has no right to recover under POFA.

 

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

 

Ricky Powell

Assessor

[DragonFly1967]

For ParkingLie. I would go something along the lines of...

 

 

Dear Shysters

 

I write with reference to your Notice to Keeper No: XXXXXXXXXXX.

 

Nice try, but as you are well aware, the Mayflower Terminal (Southampton Docks) is not relevant land for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and as such there is no keeper liability to Parking Eye or anyone else.

 

I now expect a reply to say that you are dropping the matter and an apology for having had the impudence to waste my time, and don't think that I'll accept any baloney about it being a "Gesture of Goodwill" either, or a valid POPLA code.

 

 

Print you name

Recorded Keeper

Do not actually sign it.

 

 

You do not need to be polite to these clowns!

 

 

 

Keep your powder dry on anything else at the moment. All you want is either a withdrawal or a POPLOL code

[DragonFly1967]

What did you put in your appeal to ParkingLie?

 

 

The grounds for your POPLOL appeal are fairly straightforward. The ticket machine (working or not) and everything else is irrelevant. The port (and any part of it) is not "Relevant land" for the purposes of the POFA 2012. And therefore there is no keeper liability.

 

Point them towards previous POPLOL decisions, one posted above, there are others for the same place, to backup your claim.

 

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what POPLOL say, it's only binding on ParkingLie. So ParkingLie would have to take you to court to get any money out of you, and if they did that, they will lose!

[DragonFly1967]

Should have gone with my suggestion. Then ParkingLie would be in no doubt as to the fact that they're on to a loser.

 

But, no matter. POPLOL it is then. Just make sure that you hammer home the point about there being no keeper liability. Forget dates etc, they aren't important. Just the fact that it is not "Relevant Land" and quote previous POPLOL cases where they have decided on or agreed with this point.

[DragonFly1967]

It's not that confusing honestly.

 

Think £ and add 0's and you'll soon work out why most (not quite all) PPC's would try to prove that night was day if it would make them more of it. And the DVLA are complicit because they just take the word of the PPC's because they're a member of an AOS (night is day remember) that they really do have 'reasonable cause' to obtain the keeper details.... Honest

 

For the PPC's, it's all a numbers game. They won't give a single fig whether or not they get any money from you, not really at least. You aren't important because there's a queue of other mugs behind you that they have managed to convince all waiting to give them money.

 

The whole business model stinks, but, it's what we're stuck with for now.

[DragonFly1967]

Don't worry about it decks. Whatever ParkingLie and/or POPLOL say, it isn't binding on you.

 

If ParkingLie are silly enough to chance their arm on a byelaws case in court, there's a 99.9% chance they'll lose with a strong defence. Just wait for advice (and take it) next time. This ain't our first rodeo

[DragonFly1967]

They didn't want to contest it because they realised that you were better informed than they'd hoped.

 

Well done I'll update your thread title.