If I give the website as to where my cut and pastes are from they are not 'unspecified'. On MSE people post up verbatim the actual POPLA appeal responses. Another couple were added today.
Here's one:
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 15 February 2015, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the site without authorisation.
The Operator’s case is that the site is a 1 hour free stay car park after which tariffs apply as stated on the signage and the vehicle in question remained at the site for 11 minute longer than the stay authorised.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the Operator does not have authority to pursue parking charge notices.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the site without authorisation. They advise that they have written authority to operate and issue parking charge notices at this site
from the landowner.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on balance of probabilities.
Once an Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority to pursue parking charge notices, the onus is on the Operator to show otherwise.
The Operator has not provided any evidence to address the Appellant’s submission such as a valid contract or a witness statement and they have not discharged the burden of proof.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
Aurela Qerimi
The appellant also states the site was sold on 22 Jan, so the PPC had no contract with the new landowner, but continued invoicing into February anyway. I wonder how many keepers paid up?
The contracts are never shown because of how the laws of agency and contract work. Who is the keeper's contract with if the PPC don't own the land? Do the PPC have agency rights to actually demand money? It potentially opens a can of worms, hence don't reveal it, Lose the appeal and pay £27.
If anyone wants some general reading google "parkingprankster". Lots of the issues surrounding PPCs are covered in easy to understand bite sized blogs.
This is a POPLA appeal though, not a driver being sued in court. Presumably POPLA does not allow every appeal? Can you give an example of an appeal they would not allow, ie where they consider the operator does have the authority to pursue parking charges?
If the appeal is not allowed does the motorist have any grounds for winning any court action the PPC might take against him? What percentage of motorists are pursued through the courts?
daveyjp, can you please address the questions I have asked in this & previous posts? Direct answers to these question would be of real assistance.
If you do not know the answers then please say so. Tbf, if the various forums & websites referred to did give any clear answers then we would not still be posting on this thread.
All we know so is that some appeals to POPLA are upheld, some motorists are taken to court & some succeed in getting PPC's claim thrown out. The case going to the supreme court has so far lost suggesting that the PPCs might have a case for imposing these charges.
My assessment is that should a driver get an excess charge for whatever reason, he can appeal to POPLA, the appeal may or may not be upheld. If he loses appeal & fails to pay he then may or may not be taken to court for the money PPC claims he owes them. There is no certain outcome.
Some drivers may not be pursued through the courts, some might so any driver losing the POPLA appeal who does not wish to pay may expect to have to devote a bit of time & expense to this preparing a defence & attending court.
Would you say that is a fair assessment daveyjp or is there any part of that you might disagree with?
Ye gods... click the link on this page & read the pdf ParkingEye -v- Beavis, file under 'lifes too short' I think. As pointed out previously the case appears to hang on whether the charge is a penalty(which legally it cannot be) or just a charge(which it can be provided it is reasonable), it all appears to be down to whether the judge decides the charge is reasonable or whether the charge is unreasonable enough to be considered a penalty... I think that is the gist of it.
Well, that was nice reading for a sunny Thursday morning Billy
Thanks for posting.
So:
1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 confers on operators of private car parks the right to recover parking charges.
2. Beavis judges said that control of parking on private land was in the interests of the community as a whole.
3. In that case, they said that the charge was not unreasonable and was similar to excess charges levied by public carparks or by overstaying at a meter.
4. Arguments that the charge was an unlawful penalty were rejected.
Pending the Supreme Court decision (which might have no bearing on other operators and other cases) it seems to me then that the best option is to view private and public carparks as the same, read the signs, and comply. But that if we do get an invoice from a private land car park operator, the choices are:
a) Unless there's a mistake, pay it. End of. Move on.
b) Ignore it. But that may not be the end of it.
c) Appeal if we think there's grounds. Some are upheld. Some are rejected.
d) If you don't pay, they may take you to court.
e) If you go to court, you may win. You may lose.
Hopefully this long thread serves to show that, applied correctly, private car park operators DO have the right to invoice overstayers.
The action we can then take, if we are invoiced, is down to our personal choice and judgement, and attitude to time and cost should the PPC choose to pursue it.
Is that about it?
------------- Mike
My advice is worth no more than the price paid for it
I think that covers it. Just one addition - if contacting these companies by phone if wrongly charged ( in your eyes at least ) don't believe all their threats and statements about appealing being futile.
Best of all keep away from premises and shops that use these firms if possible. If you use them scrutinise all the small print and ignore any build up of traffic behind you while you do this.
Indeed. In the Beavis case it was a retail park, so if the need is for Ikea etc there may not be much choice.
The particular car park had:
"about 20 signs at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals throughout it"
so it seems possible to park and read, and if not acceptable - leave. That would be perfectly OK in the "park free for 2 hours" type of case - unless you returned later and the cameras somehow flagged you as staying the complete time from the first visit.
I can't zoom up that pic too well but it looks like a Pay n Display carpark. Charges for overstaying might well be similar in concept to a council P&D carpark.
------------- Mike
My advice is worth no more than the price paid for it
A day of all things motorhome and campervan. The show is held both in the main indoor arena and across the grounds. Catering, hot drinks and food options are available. Easy access to the site and free parking included. Win one of five pairs of day tickets
Topic: Parking fines on watchdog now.
