DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77666--------------------------------------------------
Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: June 23, 2025, 4:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I hope someone can help me with this.
I've received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Group Nexus for
overstaying by 16 minutes at a service station. Unfortunately,
the notice was originally sent to my old address, but my ex-wife
kindly forwarded it on to me. My DVLA details have since been
updated.
On the day in question, we were visiting a local wildlife centre
and were looking for a place to stop for coffee. Our sat nav
directed us to the service station, and we entered via the back
service road. We're actually regular visitors to this location,
although we don’t usually stay longer than 20 minutes.
There were signs in place, which they’ve submitted as part of
their evidence, but we didn’t notice them at the time – likely
because it’s never been an issue before and our visits are
usually brief. On this particular day, however, the café was
very busy with long queues. I’m autistic and my partner has
formal diagnoses of both autism and ADHD, which makes time
management more difficult for us.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and did submit an
appeal, but it was rejected on the grounds that the signage was
clear. I then escalated the matter to POPLA, but they also
rejected the appeal, citing the overstay.
As part of both appeals, I provided receipts to show we had made
purchases at the service station. I also contacted MOTO
directly, as their website states that it’s not their intention
to penalise customers for minor overstays. They responded to say
they weren’t able to make any changes from their end.
This all feels incredibly unfair. We were genuine customers
using the facilities, completely unaware we had overstayed by
such a small margin.
I’ve attached the POPLA decision details below. If you’re able
to offer any advice or let me know if there’s anything further I
can do, I would really appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for
vehicle remained on site for longer than the free period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of
appeal: • They were a genuine customer of Moto and has proof of
purchases. • They say the overstay was 16 minutes and had they
been aware of the overstay they would have paid. • They say the
charge is disproportionate, unfair and no genuine loss to the
landowner. • Moto’s website states it does not intend to charge
for marginal overstays. They also emailed Moto who advised they
could not cancel the PCN. • They and their partner are
neurodivergent, they have autism and their partner has ADHD.
They both have difficulties with time management. After
reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has
reiterated their grounds of appeal and has expanded on their
grounds of appeal regarding being neurodivergent. In support of
their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. Proof of
purchases 2. Copy of email from Moto This evidence has been
considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking
operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the
driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the
car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of
the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be
issued to drivers who stay longer than 2 hours and do not make
payment. The operator has provided a copy of their automatic
number plate recognition (ANPR) images which show the vehicle
entering at 16:20, exiting at 18:36 and was on site for a total
duration of 2 hours and 16 minutes. This demonstrates that the
vehicle was on site 16 minutes longer than the 2 hour free stay
allowed. The operator has provided a copy of their payment
report which shows that no payment was made. This demonstrates
that the vehicle was not authorised to park for the extra 16
minutes that it was on site for after the 2-hour free period had
ended. I acknowledge that the appellant was not aware that they
had overstay. I acknowledge also that both the appellant and
their partner are neurodivergent and have difficulty with time
management. When looking at appeals, POPLA can only consider if
the PCN has been issued correctly in line with the terms and
conditions of the site in question. POPLA cannot allow an appeal
based on mitigating circumstances alone. Whilst I acknowledge
the appellant’s grounds of appeal when parking on a private car
park the driver enters into a contract with the operator. The
terms and conditions of this contract are displayed on the
signage throughout the car park. When entering a private land
car park, the operator gives a motorist 5 minutes from entering
the car park, to park, read the terms and conditions displayed
within the signage, decide if they can comply with them and
leave if they cannot without incurring a PCN. Where a motorist
chooses to remain in the car park or makes use of the car park
facility provided by the operator, then the motorist is deemed
to have accepted the contract offered within the signage at the
site. In this case the appellant agreed to make payment if they
stay longer than 2 hours. The Private Parking Sector Single Code
of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators
need to comply with. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice
requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition
to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do
not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance
with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period
a free period of parking. The Code tells operators that they
must allow a grace period of 10 minutes. The ANPR images show
that the vehicle was on site for 2 hours and 16 minutes, 16
minutes longer than the 2-hour free stay allowed. I am
satisfied, therefore, that the operator has consider the grace
period prior to issuing the PCN and has complied with section
5.2 of the Code. The operator has also shown via their payment
report that payment wasn’t made for the extra 16 minutes the
vehicle remained on site for. I understand that the appellant
was a genuine customer of Moto and that they have provided proof
of purchases, however, it must be noted that there is nothing
within the terms and conditions which allows a motorist to stay
longer than the 2 hours without making payment if they spend at
the site. I acknowledge that the overstay was 16 minutes and had
the appellant been aware they would have made payment, however,
the fact remains that they did overstay and did not make payment
and have breached the agreed contract. I acknowledge that the
appellant says that the Moto website states it does not intend
to charge for marginal overstays and that the appellant has
provided a copy of their email contact with Moto. The contract
the appellant formed when parking on the site was with the
parking operator via the terms and condition shown in the
signage and not with Moto. Any comments and assurances made by a
third party due not overrule the terms and conditions which are
set out on the signs. I note that in their comments the
appellant has referred to section F.3 of the Code in relation to
illness or disability. It must be noted that section F.3 refers
to delays caused by sudden onset of illness. It does not
reference illness or disability in general. Whilst I acknowledge
the appellant has explained that both themselves and their
partner are neurodivergent, they have not provided any details
of a sudden onset of illness which caused a delay to them
leaving the site within the 2 hours allowed. As such, I do not
feel that annex F3 would be applicable in this case. I note also
that the appellant has referred to the Equality Act 2010. The
Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public
must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may
discriminate. In my view the operator issued the PCN solely on
the basis that the appellant remained on site for longer than
the 2-hour free period without making payment. In this instance
I am satisfied that the operator issued the PCN accordingly, as
they would with any motorist. I acknowledge that the appellant
says that the charge is disproportionate, unfair and no genuine
loss to the landowner. 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. After reviewing the signage
provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is
legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and
therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is
available online should the appellant want to read it. In my
view the operator issued the PCN solely on the basis that the
appellant remained on site without making a valid payment. In
this instance I am satisfied that the operator issued the PCN
accordingly, as they would with any motorist. After considering
the evidence from both parties, the motorist remained on site
for longer than the free period without making payment and
therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the
site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued
correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved
with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries
regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the
parking operator directly.
#Post#: 77670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: b789
Date: June 23, 2025, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A POPLA decision is not binding on you. It will not affect
anything going forwards if you indent to fight this all the way.
The only way this will be settled is once they issue a claim.
The odds of a claim going all the way to a hearing are slim to
none. However, there is a slight risk that it could and you'd
have to be prepared to defend in court.
In the meantime, you can safely ignore all debt recovery letters
or reminders. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything
except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible
tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
#Post#: 77683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: June 23, 2025, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I just wanted to ask,
should I get in touch with them to make sure they have my most
recent address, seeing as the original PCN was sent to my old
address, or ignore and wait?
#Post#: 77686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 23, 2025, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you are concerned they have an old address for you, it would
be sensible to contact the parking company's Data Protection
Officer with a data rectification notice, advising them of your
current address for service and telling them to delete your old
one.
#Post#: 81100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: July 15, 2025, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick update:
I've notified them of my address and this has been updated.
I have received the first letter from them notifying me that no
payment has been received within 30 days of the POPLA decision
and that the amount has increased to £170 - should I reply to
this?
#Post#: 81106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 15, 2025, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: July 15, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=6941.msg77670#msg77670
date=1750673756]
> Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
OK, thank you
#Post#: 115134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: April 2, 2026, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there,
I have now received a 'Letter of Claim' from DCB Legal. I was
advised to return when I received this. Can anybody help me,
please?
Many thanks
#Post#: 115332--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: April 8, 2026, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, hopefully I'm not being too impatient but just wondered if
anybody had seen this and would be able to offer some advice,
please? Thank you.
#Post#: 115337--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 8, 2026, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We cannot advise on the contents of a letter we haven't seen -
please show us the LoC. A good starting point would be to look
at other similar cases on here that have reached the claim
stage, and look at the responses that were sent. Draft something
up to show us, and we can offer advice.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page