POPLA Decisions

Despite previously allowing appeals on Town Quay, POPLA have now refused my appeal stating that the bylaws so allow them to issue tickets!! Ouch.

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Emily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a valid payment being made.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the site in question fails to meet the definition of relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). As a result, the appellant believes that the operator has failed to established keeper liability due to the Associated British Ports' Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I feel it is necessary to comment on a ground for appeal raised by the appellant. Throughout the appeal process, the appellant has maintained that the site in question – Southampton Town Quay – is governed by Byelaws. To substantiate his claim, the appellant has included a copy of the Associated British Ports' Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 in his appeal to POPLA. Prior to issuing this decision, I sought advice from POPLA’s Lead Adjudicator regarding this appeal. After discussing the case at length, both myself and POPLA’s Lead Adjudicator agreed with the following: PoFA 2012 only applies on relevant land. Relevant land is defined as anything except: (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. Under (c), “subject to statutory control” is defined as: (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. The Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 defines a vehicle as: “vehicle” includes any vehicle propelled on rails, any machinery on wheels or caterpillar tracks, trailers, caravans and mobile homes and includes a hovercraft or any other amphibious vehicle; After considering this, we concluded that this definition does not include most on-road vehicles, including cars. Because of this, we concluded that the land is not subject to statutory control for the purpose of parking cars and PoFA 2012 can apply. The Southampton Harbour byelaws do not contain any section on parking. What the District Judge considered was whether Section 37, below, included parking: Obstruction or interference on the dock estate: 37. No person shall: (a) except with the permission of ABP, deposit or place on any part of the dock estate any goods or park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, railway, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto; or (b) without lawful authority, use, work, move or tamper with any plant, machinery, equipment or apparatus at the dock estate. For Southampton Harbour, as the Byelaws do not include any provisions in respect of parking, the land is not under statutory control in respect of parking. The land is therefore relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012. In summary, while this may not necessarily be the case for all harbours, both myself and POPLA’s Lead Adjudicator agreed that on balance, Southampton Harbour is not subject to Byelaws. As a result, I will continue to assess the appeal as normal, taking into consideration the fact that the driver of the vehicle has not been identified and therefore, the operator must meet the requirements of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Visitors must log their full, correct vehicle registration using the terminal in reception to obtain free parking for the duration of their stay. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of: £100”. 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 09:28 and exiting the site at 10:02. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of 34 minutes. The operator has provided a system print out, which confirms that the driver failed to make a valid payment on the date in question. At no point during the appeal process has the appellant advised or made reference to why the driver failed to make a payment, nor has the appellant referred to any specific circumstances from the date in question. As such, I cannot take these into consideration. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the driver accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, by failing to make a valid payment, the driver has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.