POPLA Decisions

The signs at the car park do not inform the motorists that their parking time starts on entry to the car park.

That's a corker if POPLA is going to allow appeals on that basis - it has the potential to blow all ANPR tickets, especially in a P&D car park where a ticket is purchased with an actual time showing. But not restricted to P&D - jeez that's an exponential number of new signs required!

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the parking time he had paid for.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that due to the payment machine being faulty, the appellant opted to pay for her parking via telephone, which took some time. The appellant exited the car park within the parking time he had paid for.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:32 and exiting the site at 16:42. The operator has provided a system print out which shows the appellant paid for two hours parking at 14:44, expiring at 16:44. The operator has provided PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs do not inform motorists that their parking time commences upon entry into the car park. From the images captured on the ANPR cameras, the appellant’s vehicle was on site for a total of two hours and 10 minutes. As the appellant paid for two hours parking, that leaves 10 minutes unaccounted for. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “you should allow the driver a reasonable grace period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” As the appellant’s overstay was a total of 10 minutes after the parking contract had ended, I consider the Parking Charge Notice to have been issued without proper consideration of a reasonable grace period.

That is humdinger of a decision - could we ask which Assessor please, so we can quote them?

salmosalaris wrote: »

Its a contradictory decision . On one hand it refers to the fact that the signage does not inform of the start of the parking allowance but goes on to state there was a 10 minute overstay and relies on an inadequate grace period .

Works both ways then!

The appeal was upheld because no NTK was ever sent after the Keeper appealed the windscreen ticket. The other appeal points were ignored e.g. Parking for permit holders only therefore no offer of parking thus no breach of contract.

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Rochelle Merritt
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the vehicle was parked on a footpath/grass verge.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has not been identified as the driver.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has not identified the keeper as the driver. The appellant has appealed to the operator making clear that they were not the driver, however the operator has not provided any evidence to suggest that it responded to this by issuing a Notice to Keeper. As the driver has not been identified, and the operator has not provided any Notice to Keeper in its evidence, I am unable to conclude that the operator has followed the requirements set out in Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Accordingly I must allow the appeal.