3. Carpark charge before 5pm
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: Carpark charge before 5pm  (Read 3019 times)

0 Members and 39 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #30 on: »
You essentially need to walk the assessor through your points, assuming they have no prior knowledge (which shouldn't be the case, but helps make your argument clear). For the signage point for example, talk them through it point by point:
  • ParkingEye issued a parking charge for "either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or [...] remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage".
  • The driver did not do either of these things
  • The signage says that tariffs apply between [TIME] and [TIME]. The vehicle was parked between [TIME] and [TIME]. As they were not parked during the times when tariffs apply, according to the signage, it cannot be the case that the driver failed to purchase the appropriate parking time.
  • The signage does not stipulate a maximum permitted stay, outside of the times when tariffs apply, nor does it state that parking is prohibited outside of the times when tariffs apply. As such, it cannot be the case that the driver remained at the car park for longer than permitted.
  • As the driver did not fail to purchase the appropriate parking time (as no tariff was due), nor did they remain at the car park for longer than permitted, the charge is not owed and the appeal should be upheld.

Produce your appeal as a PDF, and include a photo of the signage with this point, to demonstrate your arguments. (Don't just copy those bullets verbatim, you may need to expand, that's just an example of how to walk the assessor through your points.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #31 on: »
Should the OP consider the third option which IMO is the implied condition that outside the hours of 5pm - 8am parking for the general public is not permitted?

..appeal should be upheld.

The appellant has even considered a third alternative - which has not been asserted let alone implied by the creditor but which is being addressed in this appeal for completeness - which is that parking by the general public outside of the charging hours is not permitted and therefore being on site at all during this period must constitute a breach. However, as the assessor will appreciate, even if such a condition applied, which it is asserted does not, this could only give rise to a trespass and therefore no contract was formed and the parking charge for breach of the same must be dismissed.
Logged
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #32 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on June 14, 2024, 04:06:17 pm
Should the OP consider the third option which IMO is the implied condition that outside the hours of 5pm - 8am parking for the general public is not permitted?
I'd say that isn't really implied by the signage, it's only implied insofar as that must be the condition ParkingEye were intending to take effect, otherwise they wouldn't have issued a parking charge. That said, if making this point, I'd be tempted to shift the focus to the fact that if ParkingEye wish to argue that this is the intended interpretation of the signage, then that term is at best ambiguous, and as such, Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act (2015) should apply:

If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

The meaning that is most favourable to the consumer here is the one that means parking outside of the times stated is allowed without the payment of a tariff, and thus no breach has occurred.

They could, if they wanted to go full belt and braces, then follow that up with your point to say that even if it was accepted that the terms were such that parking is not allowed outside of those terms, this would be a trespass. My only apprehension about making that point is that it could add confusion into the mix, and allow the assessor to focus on that point, to the detriment of the other points.
Logged
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #33 on: »
There seems to be an assumption here that the POPLA assessor is going to be legally trained enough to decipher a suggestion that it was prohibited to park outside of those hours.

KISS as it may only be the janitor doing the assessment on the day.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #34 on: »
If it were me appealing, I'd be minded to leave that point out.

If ParkingEye want to make the argument that their sign means no parking allowed outside those hours, let them, then rebut that argument at the comments stage. Don't make their own point for them.

But if you are going to include it, I'd use the Consumer Rights Act argument.
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #35 on: »
Sorry, but I don't think it's helpful to OPs to call into question the capabilities of POPLA assessors in this way. If this were correct then it would surely be a total waste of time to introduce matters regarding the interpretation of the CRA into such a mix. We can't have it both ways, we either respect their impartiality and competence and construct appeals accordingly or not and don't.

C'est la vie.
Logged
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #36 on: »
No one with extensive experience of POPLA "respects" their capabilities nor their competence. In fact, unless the argument is so clear cut, it is advised that it is not worth wasting time on a POPLA appeal.

POPLA are funded by the BPA members and so are not truly independent. It has been shown numerous times that when an assessor has misinterpreted the law or the CoP and complaint about it has been made, even though they agree that a decision was made in error, they will not reverse such a decision.

The derogatory inference is precisely because they have shown that they are not truly independent and are often seen to make decisions that fly in the face of common sense and then admit it but refuse to change those decisions. Hence the point being that it may as well be the janitor or the tea-boy who made the assessment.

Until such time as a truly independent ADR service is in place, I and countless others will have little to no respect for their cosy, incestuous relationship with the BPA.

Others are free to disagree.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #37 on: »
Quote from: b789 on June 14, 2024, 05:27:28 pm
No one with extensive experience of POPLA "respects" their capabilities nor their competence. In fact, unless the argument is so clear cut, it is advised that it is not worth wasting time on a POPLA appeal.

POPLA are funded by the BPA members and so are not truly independent. It has been shown numerous times that when an assessor has misinterpreted the law or the CoP and complaint about it has been made, even though they agree that a decision was made in error, they will not reverse such a decision.

The derogatory inference is precisely because they have shown that they are not truly independent and are often seen to make decisions that fly in the face of common sense and then admit it but refuse to change those decisions. Hence the point being that it may as well be the janitor or the tea-boy who made the assessment.

Until such time as a truly independent ADR service is in place, I and countless others will have little to no respect for their cosy, incestuous relationship with the BPA.

Others are free to disagree.

Reading this makes me feel I should've just paid the reduced fine amount and the popla appeal is pointless... ???
Logged
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #38 on: »
I have drafted this:

Dear Sirs,

I am appealing this parking charge notice. I am appealing on the grounds that the driver did not breach any of the terms of parking as advertised by the signage on the site.

ParkingEye issued a parking charge for "either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage".
The driver did not do either of these things.

The signage at the site (a copy of which is attached) states that tariffs only apply between 5pm-8am Monday-Friday, and all day Saturday and Sunday. The vehicle was parked on Friday 3/5/24 between 09:05am and 13:27. As they were not parked during the times when tariffs apply, according to the signage, it cannot be the case that the driver failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. As the car was not parked during these times, no tariff was due. The signage does not stipulate a maximum permitted stay, outside of the times when tariffs apply, nor does it state that parking is prohibited outside of the times when tariffs apply. As such, it cannot be the case that the driver remained at the car park for longer than permitted.

It is not implied by the signage that parking outside the hours of 5pm-8am for the general public is not permitted. If parkingeye had meant for this, then it should be clearly stated. If ParkingEye wish to argue that this is the intended interpretation of the signage, then that term is at best ambiguous, and as such, Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act (2015) should apply:

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

The meaning that is most favourable to the consumer here is the one that means parking outside of the times stated is allowed without the payment of a tariff, and thus no breach has occurred.

As the driver did not fail to purchase the appropriate parking time (as no tariff was due), nor did they remain at the car park for longer than permitted, the charge is not owed and the appeal should be upheld.
Logged
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #39 on: »
Unless others have a different point of view, I'd say that you may as well try your luck with POPLA and let's see how they make their assessment.

Don't be disheartened by the discussion about the merits or otherwise of POPLA. At least they have much higher successful appeal rate than the IAS which is around 4%-5%.

An unsuccessful appeal by POPLA has no bearing on any future claim, should it come to that. In fact, it is often preferred to have a judge decide whether you owe a debt because they are the only truly independent arbiter.

If the appeal is not successful at POPLA, it would be interesting to see how PE deal with this. If they decide to use a third party debt collector to send useless letters, it means that they have little to no faith that they would win in court. You can guarantee that if they use DCB Legal to file a claim on their behalf, you won't be paying a penny. I won't go into all the detail of why right now except to say that is a known modus operandi for any claim issued by DCB Legal that is defended using the template defence is discontinued before they have to pay the hearing fee.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #40 on: »
If you present your case strongly, POPLA aren't as bad as they're sometimes made out. I think the takeaway is to not panic if they reject your appeal.

Anecdotally, POPLA are sometimes reluctant to rule on signage, as it forces the parking company to change it, but don't be discouraged.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #41 on: »
Quote from: b789 on June 14, 2024, 06:00:31 pm
Unless others have a different point of view, I'd say that you may as well try your luck with POPLA and let's see how they make their assessment.

Don't be disheartened by the discussion about the merits or otherwise of POPLA. At least they have much higher successful appeal rate than the IAS which is around 4%-5%.

An unsuccessful appeal by POPLA has no bearing on any future claim, should it come to that. In fact, it is often preferred to have a judge decide whether you owe a debt because they are the only truly independent arbiter.

If the appeal is not successful at POPLA, it would be interesting to see how PE deal with this. If they decide to use a third party debt collector to send useless letters, it means that they have little to no faith that they would win in court. You can guarantee that if they use DCB Legal to file a claim on their behalf, you won't be paying a penny. I won't go into all the detail of why right now except to say that is a known modus operandi for any claim issued by DCB Legal that is defended using the template defence is discontinued before they have to pay the hearing fee.

Thanks. Hopefully doesn't go any further. Caused a lot of stress and hassle!
Logged
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #42 on: »
Quote from: DWMB2 on June 14, 2024, 06:29:19 pm
If you present your case strongly, POPLA aren't as bad as they're sometimes made out. I think the takeaway is to not panic if they reject your appeal.

Anecdotally, POPLA are sometimes reluctant to rule on signage, as it forces the parking company to change it, but don't be discouraged.

Thanks. Thoughts on my revised appeal for popla?
Logged
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #43 on: »
I would amend, my suggestion being as follows:

The signage at the site (a copy of which is attached) states that tariffs only* apply between 5pm-8am Monday-Friday, & all day Saturday and Sunday.

If parking is offered to the general public at all hours and on all days, then there is no ambiguity about these terms which can only be interpreted as meaning that, as regards whether parking is subject to payment of a tariff, parking is free of charge between 5pm and 8am Monday to Friday; from 5pm to midnight on Fridays; and all hours Saturday and Sunday.

The driver in this case parked on a Friday at 9.05am and left at 1.27pm the same day.

Payment for parking was not required, it therefore follows that this limb of the creditor's allegation is without merit.

The second limb of the creditor's allegation is that the vehicle 'remained at the car park for longer than permitted'. However, the full terms have been reproduced above (and can be seen in the attached photo) and the assessor will notice that the landowner has not applied any maximum parking period on motorists. It therefore follows that this limb of the creditor's allegation must also fail.

*- the word only doesn't appear. Just stick with the wording at this stage, interpretations can follow.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2024, 03:53:15 pm by H C Andersen »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
« Reply #44 on: »
Chsnge 'free of charge' to 'chargeable'  :)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »
  3. Carpark charge before 5pm