Friday, 7 March 2014

POPLA decree ParkingEye are incorrectly claiming keeper liability at Town Quay

ParkingEye have been issuing large numbers of parking charges at Associated British Ports Town Quay, and these charges have stated that keeper liability applies under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, schedule 4, if ParkingEye are not informed of the name and address of the driver.

However, PoFA 2012 only applies on 'relevant land', and PoFA 2012 specifically exempts land 'on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control'

This is further defined in paragraph 3(3)
‘For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.’
Paragraph 3(4) states that statutory provision includes byelaws.

Town Quay is subject to statutory control in the form of bylaws; byelaw 39 states:
“A person having charge of a vehicle in the dock estate shall at all times comply with any directions of ABP with respect to the loading, discharging, manoeuvring and removal thereof and shall not, without the permission of the ABP:-
a) Leave the vehicle unattended anywhere within the dock estate; or,
b) Take it into any shed or working area”.
POPLA has ruled that condition (a) clearly relates to the parking of a vehicle.

Byelaw 62 provides that a contravention of the byelaws would lead to liability for a fine.

Clearly then, on this land keeper liability does not apply. POPLA have now ruled on this issue and assessor Chris Adamson has upheld an appeal on this basis. This result has been some time coming. Previous attempts to get POPLA to decide on this issue have resulted in creative attempts to evade the question and rule on other points instead.

ParkingEye have been made aware of the byelaws for some time. The DVLA has warned that it will suspend parking operators who claim keeper liability applies when it does not and so ParkingEye should be well aware that they are contravening their contract with the DVLA.

The Parking Prankster  now waits to see what action the DVLA will take to correct this flagrant breach of the regulations.

If ParkingEye continue to issue parking charges on this site while claiming keeper liability exists, then they may be guilty of fraud or deceit. Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 establishes it is an offence to make false representation with a dishonest intention. The Prankster assumes they will soon modify their charge notices to avoid this problem.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Now we want the same ruling regarding the various airports patrolled by the likes of VCS and Apcoa

  2. And what of all the charges already paid under keeper liability?

  3. @Stuart Cross - you would have to challenge them in small claims court to recover. Not sure how easy it will be though.

  4. I doubt if small claims would hear the case. The statutory route to appeal was POPLA.

    Would probably be a test case. Interesting.

  5. There is no "statutory route to appeal"... POPLA is a purely private enterprise and has no statutory footing whatsoever.

  6. As for the comment...

    The Parking Prankster now waits to see what action the DVLA will take to correct this flagrant breach of the regulations.

    AS USUAL - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...why bite the hand that feeds you?

  7. I'm assuming that as long as they stay away from POPLA that PE will continue to issue invoices

  8. We have a case of ongoing collusion/conspiracy to commit an offence here.
    Not only arte PE making illegitimate claims of right to issue charges, they are being aided by the landowner.

    If the landowner is given notification that PE are using PoFA when it has no right to do so, on behalf of the landowner then that party to the act of collusion/conspiracy must be brought to task.

    I would suggest a letter to the responsible person at Town Quays to warn them of the illegal action then if it doesn't cease a court claim could be mounted against them directly instead of defending a claim from PE.

    This sort of action may just start the ball rolling to have the premises covered by by-laws see sense and drop the PPC's from "managing" the land.

  9. Has anyone else come across incorrect temporary signage as in "£2.50 all day" which turns out not to be true - the machine will only accept the regular £4.50 which I didn't have with me. As I'd been queueing so long to park and took a long time to get to the 2nd machine (first broken) with my 3 year old son, I went over 10 mins and they're trying to fine me.

  10. Has anyone else come across situations where untrue temporary signs were displayed? I tried to park in a ParkingEye car park with a "£2.50 all day" banner, queued for ages as it was busy and tapered (hard to turn around), managed to squeeze in a tight spot, struggled to get my 3 year old son out of the car in the tight space, went to two machines (first one broken, wouldn't accept registration number entry) and found that I actually couldn't pay less than £4.50, which I couldn't afford with the change I had. So I left but had gone just over 10 mins, and parked in the neighbouring railway station short stay for 40 mins instead. They're trying to fine me and have of course rejected this explanation.