ParkingEye POPLA Appeal Rejected Glynn Square Wolverton

[pep21]

I am hoping somebody can give me some advice on the following.

 

I parked in a car park which states that there is 1.5 hours free parking for customers of the shops there.

I parked for 1:45:16 on a Sunday morning at 8:15am.

The shops all opened at 10am.

I had intended to leave well before the 1.5 hours but unfortunately my key battery was not working (I had been aware of the need to change it but hadn't) and therefore had to wait for my partner to bring me a spare key. This took her over 30 minutes as we live 15 minutes away, she had to dress herself and the kids and find the spare key.

 

I explained this to ParkingEye who rejected this

I therefore appealed to POPLA who rejected my claims using ParkingEye vs Beavis which is a completely different case with different circumstances.

I argued that I could not be in breach of contract because there is no contract offered for the car park when the stores are closed which is true.

 

POPLA rejected my claims as follows:

'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 appellant explains that is he parked to use the Gym on site on a Sunday morning.

The appellant states the Gym did not have any parking facilities.

The appellant states did not overstay on site.

The appellant states his car was immobilised in the period it was there for a short time, meaning he was unable to access the car.

 

Whilst I note this comment, and the situation raised by the appellant.

I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis.

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states:

“1 ½ hours max stay… Customer Only Car Park…

For use only whilst shopping in store…

Failure to comply with the following will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 08:15, and exiting at 10:00, totalling a stay of 1 hour, 45 minutes.

The evidence provided shows that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site longer than permitted as stated on the signage.

The appellant states that the signage does not offer a contract outside of store opening times and therefore cannot be subject to a PCN.

 

Whilst I note this comment, the signage clearly states that the parking on site is for store users only whilst shopping.

The appellant has stated within their appeal that they were attending a nearby gym.

The appellant has not identified that he was shopping on site on the day of the event.

 

Whilst I note the signage does not specify what parking restrictions apply when the shops are closed, the signage does not suggest that parking is without restriction during the time the shops are closed. Therefore, I am satisfied that the terms are applicable at all times on site.

 

It is the onus of the motorist to review the terms and conditions of the signage before parking.

Should they reject these terms, they have the opportunity to exit the site within a reasonable timeframe, usually 10 minutes, to seek alternative parking before any enforcement action is taken. However, as the appellant’s vehicle remained parked, they have accepted the terms and ultimately a £100 Parking Charge.

 

The appellant states that there is no landowner consent to persons being charged outside of store opening hours.

The operator has provided evidence that it has the appropriate landowner authority to manage parking on site. A

s such, I am satisfied based on the available evidence that it can issue PCN’s under authority.

 

The appellant states that the PCN is unfair and disproportionate.

The appellant states he has been asked to pay when no monetary loss has been subjected on any of the shops at the venue when they were closed.

 

The legality of parking charges was considered in a high profile court case, Parking Eye v Beavis.

This case was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court which concluded that:

“… the £85 charge is not a penalty.

Both Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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.”

 

The charge in this instance, while it may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, is in the region of the £85 charge decided upon by the Supreme Court, is neither extravagant nor unconscionable and is therefore reasonable. 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 parked for longer than permitted and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions.

As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

 

I find this hard to accept and see this as completely unfair.

I am thinking of going to court and arguing this but am reluctant to have to pay anymore than the £100 fine!

 

any advice?

[brassnecked]

Welcome to CAG pep21, I'm sure some advice will be forthcoming shortly, where in any paperwork does it refer to the penalty as a "Fine"?

 

You appealed to PE as the driver  then when appeal rejected you appealed to POPLA is that the sequence of events?

[pep21]

Hi Brassnecked

 

The sequence of events is correct. The term 'fine' is not actually used anywhere. That is simply me using the word. 

 

Thanks.

[dx100uk]

go check the granted planning permission for the whole site and what it says about car parking

you will find that it does not state 1.5hrs, more like 3hrs free when granted, and that no-one can dictate patrons using it MUST visit an on site store to be allowed to park for free there.

 

no-one can change that least of all a stupid PPC.

 

[dx100uk]

you are lucky.

someone has already done it for you I bet

 

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=Glynn Square Wolverton&oq=Glynn Square Wolverton&gs_l=partner-generic.12...218485.218485.0.219920.1.1.0.0.0.0.149.149.0j1.1.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.0...2.34.partner-generic..1.0.0.7UfI_vPPsFw

[pep21]

I have just been through the plans and there actually doesn't seem to be any reference to any time period from what I can see but I can't make out all the wording on the images. 

It seems they put in the camera and then retrospectively applied for the permission which was granted: 

Application Number: 15/02384/FUL

Location: 4 Glyn Square Wolverton Milton Keynes MK12 5JQ

Description: Installation of automatic number plate recognition cameras (retrospective)

Decision Date: 2016-01-22

 

I think it is ridiculous to make me pay money for when the shops were closed. Who should I write to about this considering the POPLA decision?

[renegadeimp]

You read up on other cases. Theyre exactly the same as yours.  DOnt worry about popla. The decision isnt binding on you at all.

[ericsbrother]

now the retrospective PP only makes it meaningful for those who were caught out before the permission was granted and the retrospective bit is a red herring as there isnt such a thing as a retrospective contract.

 

In your case you have  decided to confuse  the terms of the offer of a contract and argue a point that is completely irrelevant and so wasnt going to get you naywhere BUT it does raise an interesting get out that has a chance of success if a judge takes it literally rather than its intended meaning.

 

As you werent a customer then you were trespassing as you hadnt been invited on to the land to shop ( and couldnt shop). PE admit this so you cant be subject to the terms that apply to genuine customers and therefore cant breach a contract that doesnt exist.

 

What they have totally ignored is the fact your vehicle was broken down and so not in breach of  contract  for that either as any contract you wished to be bound by was frustrated by the breakdown so neither party is obliged to continue under its terms.

 

Of course POPLA have nothing to say about this because the BPA doesnt allow them to consider this rather inconvenient fact as it loses their members money ( and the IAS dont allow any appeals because they dont read them)

PE wont consider your appeal because how else are they goping to make money?

 

What to do next?

Nothing, wait and let them chase you rather than say the wrong thing.

In the meanwhile pictures of the signage and also the entrance to the land from the public highway,

signs there or not and also pictures of any partition or delineation of the land such as where the gym is as it will have its own curtillage whether that has parking spaces on it or not.

 

as for going to court to argue this,

you cant take them to court as you have made no loss so waiting until they sue you is the only way of having your day out but chances are use the correct defence to a claim and they will then drop the claim rather than suffer costs.

 

 so you wait and then you wait some more.

Read up a load of other threads (hundreds not just a few) and get yourself acquainted to what is normal in these situations so you dont panic and say the wrong thing in a hurry

[brassnecked]

Other uncomfortable fact  for PE is as EB says there is no contract, then Beavis cannot apply either.

[pep21]

POPLA deemed the contract to be valid though. Who are POPLA anyway?

[dx100uk]

old boys club of PPC's members

not independent at all.

 

dx

 

[ericsbrother]

17 minutes ago, pep21 said:

POPLA deemed the contract to be valid though. Who are POPLA anyway?

you need to do a bit of background reading for this from now on. You have plenty of time before they send you the next begging letter but do make a start on it soon.

[pep21]

I waited and I waited and have ignored the repeated requests for money inclusive of them sending me a goodwill gesture to reduce the 'fine' back to the original if I paid up within 14 days of the letter being sent.

 

Whilst all this was going on I complained to the landowners, whilst preparing myself for my day in court and they too felt the charge was ridiculous so they requested it be cancelled and it apparently has been. Thanks for all help offered. 

[ericsbrother]

requested- did they gte back to you and say that it has been?

Do not trust anyone's word so for the moment keep going as though they are going to continue asking for money

[pep21]

do they let you know that it has been cancelled?  Or do you just wait to see if they send you another invoice?

[ericsbrother]

no they wont as that would be admitting they are wrong and that would open the floodgates

[Mrs O'Frog]

Keep everything safe for 6 years, even if they have cancelled. It's not unheard of for them to "lose" the record that it was cancelled and start chasing for payment again a few years down the line.