My wife appealed a £60 fine from GEMINI at Chase Farm on the grounds that the the fine was disproportionate to the cost to the land owner (based on a template she'd seen been sent by a friend).
Unfortunately we hadn't come across this forum/others that help ensure the POPLA appeal is successful.
POPLA have since rejected our appeal.
In that time, the charge has now increased to £100. We just wanted some advise on what we can do now? DO we just pay it or is there something else we can do?
Recently I received a CCJ for a parking fine from a long time ago, luckily caught within 30 days so this was set aside. I'd hate for this to happen again as it cost me about £250 to get the CCJ set aside.
Any help/advice will be much appreciated.
Below is the rejection from POPLA:
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor XXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked on site and failed to purchase parking time for duration of stay.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the amount being requested is disproportionate and is not based upon any genuine pre estimate of loss to the company of the landowner.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The appellant’s vehicle registration, XXXX XXX, was captured entering the site at 11:00 and exiting at 13:26. The appellant remained at the site for a period of two hours and 25 minutes. The terms and conditions at the site state “Parking tariffs apply. Enter your vehicle registration into the pay station keypad and pay for the duration of your stay.” There are signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered. There is helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant as the appellant parked on site and failed to purchase parking time for duration of stay. The appellant states the amount being requested is disproportionate and is not based upon any genuine pre estimate of loss to the company of the landowner. The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that insufficient parking was purchased on the date of the event. In order for a warden to assess if a vehicle is parked in accordance with the advertised terms and conditions a valid payment would need to be made for duration of stay. On this occasion the warden has issued a PCN as the appellant failed to comply with the terms offered. I note the appellant’s comments and their reason for parking at the site in question. However, in their appeal the appellant has not provided any evidence to support their submission. In assessing this appeal I have considered the evidence provided by the operator to be true as the appellant has failed to rebut their claims. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions offered at the site. The appellant says the parking charge is disproportionate. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye 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 ParkingEye 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.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage advertised at the car park. When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By remaining parked the appellant has accepted the terms and conditions offered but failed to adhere to them. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.
Many thanks in advance.
