Dear all,
After appealing to POPLA and waiting for months, they finally made their decision! It's all thanks to you and your amazing knowledge and guidance that ordinary people like me can fight back against unjust fines and tickets. Can't thank you enough. I post this hoping that it can help someone else at some point.
Here is their verdict...
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name......
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to purchase the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper and state the operator has failed to bring the £85 charge to the attention of the driver which is a failure of PoFA. • Under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominently displayed, Whilst the Monday – Saturday tariffs are highlighted in green at the top, the Sunday and Bank Holiday tariffs are placed at the bottom in black, making them less prominent. • No invitation to the keeper to pay the PCN has been made, which is a failure of PoFA. • The operator has failed to comply with section 18.1, 18.3 and 19.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of the PCN and an image of a sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and note they state the amount of the charge was not appropriately brought to their attention. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. On review, I am not satisfied that that the signage is legible because the sum of charge is neither prominent, in larger or bold text or highlighted in a separate box. It is the same size as the rest of the text which does not make it prominent. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the contract terms were made clear to the motorist. As such, I am allowing this appeal. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.
