A motorist forced to pay an outrageous parking charge has gained some satisfaction by helping his friends. The motorist previously overstayed at a free car park while shopping. At the time they were injured and could not move quickly. Eventually, not knowing the appeals system, they were forced to cough up a charge completely disproportionate to the losses involved.
Now informed on how the system worked, he helped his friends who visited a leisure centre. They first visited a restaurant which was packed and took a long time to first get a seat, and then get served. After that, they went to the cinema, where Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was enjoyed. This is a long file (2.5 hours including adverts) which ended up taking them 16 minutes over the 6 hour maximum stay.
A ticket turned up in the post, and the friend appealed on the grounds of being a genuine customer of the site. The operator turned down the appeal; this does seem strange - after all, the motorist was spending money on site using the facilities and it is not unreasonable to need that length of time to eat and view a film.
The original motorist therefore helped his friend at a POPLA appeal, where the appeal was upheld on the grounds of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, although he did comment it could possibly all been solved much earlier by contacting the cinema/restaurant.
Prankster Note
The landowner has the right to impose car parking restrictions, but this does not give a car parking operator carte blanche to charge a fee disproportionate to the costs involved.
If the landowner wants to attract visitors to attractions which take a lengthy period, then the car park cannot be used as an entrapment zone to charge huge amounts for minor overstays which do not cause loss to the landowner and which are caused by enjoying the site facilities.
The system in this car park does not seem fit for purpose, and the landowner would be better off restructuring the conditions to match the requirements of their customers. Obviously, if you are planning to use the site facilities for a meal and film, then delays do occasionally happen and this cannot be used as a cash cow for the parking operator.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Was the original motorist truly forced to pay the invoice (i.e. ordered by a court to do so) or did he/she fold in response to PPC threatograms?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, please leave sloppy hyperbole to the legacy media.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for posting here but I couldn’t find the correct spot but:
ReplyDeleteAs I’m helping two friends I feel it relevant:
I’m in the middle of taking on the DVLA and the BPA regarding Private Parking Companies.
If a motorist appeals to POPLA and spends money and a lot of time photographing posing, travelling printing etc. the cost goes on. Then when the appeal is heard by POPLA and the motorist has asked why they haven’t received any evidence from the Parking Company to justify the parking company issuing their invoice to the motorist and the BPA state they don’t have to is totally wrong.
If you go to this web site put up by POPLA stating “Your Opportunity to appeal against a parking charge.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.popla.org.uk%2FLondon%2520Councils%2F4POPLAAppealformandnotes0513.pdf&ei=DCFWVKG-JIvX7QaIpIAI&usg=AFQjCNGYXPLAbShOx3C0phBPklDNdW_rsA&sig2=AEEi2LGVw7fQw3XG09WYRw
You will find in the last paragraph of the section “How to appeal” it states
:“The Operator is required to send the assessor details of their case.
The meaning of the word “Required” according to the Dictionary is: “Officially Compulsory”. But the AOS-BPA are still stating, the operator doesn’t have to present evidence.
This is a copy of their reply to our email to them:
As previously advised, I will be investigating this matter with the operator and once I have concluded this I will be in touch. It is correct that operators do not have to supply evidence to POPLA if they choose not to.
Please note what the AOS are saying “It is correct that operators do not have to supply evidence to POPLA if they choose not to”.
After repeatedly telling the BPA this is not so according to the POPLA instructions on “How To Appeal” they are still persisting the operator dose not have to justify they charges to the Keeper/Driver at POPLA. I am eagerly waiting for the results of their investigation but I fear it will be a white wash and we will have to get a court ruling on who is correct POPLA or the BPA because the DVLA will sit on the fence as usual if the answer isn’t in their book of excuses..
I am helping two neighbours who have won their appeals at POPLA in getting their costs back from the parking company concerned and if necessary we will go to court to get them. In my opinion the DVLA are at fault also and I have many emails from them trying to justify their actions in releasing personal details to my way of thinking “Without Due Course”. As I’m in the thick of this I would love the help of the Parking Prankster.
If he would contact me on karvindon@talktalk.net I would be grateful.