POPLA Decisions

zoole

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameSteve Macallan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration xxxxxxx, either did “not [purchase] the appropriate parking time or [remained] at the car park for longer than permitted” xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx August 2017.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he was attending the hospital for business reasons. He says he purchased two hours of parking time and then later purchased a second ticket for another two hours. He states that the operator has not taken into account the time it took to park and also depart the site. He says that he was queued in the car park for around 30 minutes in total, to find a bay and later depart the site. The appellant has provided his two parking tickets.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions state: “Parking Tariffs Apply” and that “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £70”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 10:41 and departing at 15:04, remaining for a total of four hours and 23 minutes. In addition, there is a system print-out showing the two payments the appellant made. The appellant purchased his first ticket at 10:48 and purchased a total of four hours of parking. This means the parking period ended at 14:48. As the vehicle departed at 15:04, this leaves an overstay of 16 minutes. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.4, regarding “Grace periods”, states that operator’s “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended…the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes". In his initial appeal to the operator, the appellant states: “We were slightly delayed on our return to my car due to traffic, and I left as soon as I returned to my car”. This grace period is for the vehicle to depart, not for the time taken for the driver to return to his vehicle. Therefore, I cannot consider 16 minutes to be a reasonable grace period in this instance. When parking on private land it is the motorist’s responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions of the site they are entering before deciding to park. The terms and tariffs are clear, but the vehicle remained for longer than the purchased parking time. Therefore, I am satisfied that he did not park in accordance with the terms and conditions at the site. As such, the operator correctly issued the PCN and I must refuse this appeal

Redx

Parking Eye loss at Newquay

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5703868

failure to transfer liability from driver to keeper , POFA2012 wins again

Redx

and another one , Parking Eye , Tower Road , Newquay

no landowner contract submitted

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5714955

Umkomaas

Redx wrote: »

and another one , Parking Eye , Tower Road , Newquay

no landowner contract submitted

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5714955

Yet again.

You have to wonder just what authority they do have at Tower Road, because if they had it, it would (other appeal points being weak) be simple to show and would provide a slam dunk win for them.

greg2424

Decision: Successful

Date: October 2017

Reported: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73334440#Comment_73334440

Successful Grounds: No authority to operate on the land

PPC: NCP

Decision Detail: While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land. Section 7 of the British Parking Association
(BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the
landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide any evidence in
response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to
operate on the land in question. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I have also followed up with a letter to David Dunford @ DVLA with the following:

I am writing to advise that that POPLA have confirmed that the above NCP operated car park mentioned above have no authority to operate at this site. Are you able to confirm that the DVLA will no longer provide this operator with keeper information for this site? I fear that continuing to provide this information to this operator may result in the DVLA potentially being considered complicit in NCP’s fraudulent pursuit of keepers whose vehicles are parked there.

NCP neither satisfy the BPA Code of Practice, nor the DVLA KADOE contract with you. Please find attached a copy of a recent POPLA appeal and the resultant POPLA decision.

McMahon

Got good news today! Appeal successful - 30.10.2017

Dear *************

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference *********.

MET Parking Services have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5712584

Special thanks to Coupon-mad and Quentin, and

Coupon-mad, your signature-text is very helpful!

After following Coupon-mad's signature-text directing newbies to the right thread, I started by sending initial appeal to MET Parking on 16/09/2017 (used the draft letter). Within one week got the rejection letter containing POPLA verification code. On 11/10/2017 sent my appeal to POPLA (the text will follow). Today, 30/10/2017, received an email update from POPLA allowing my appeal


Following is the appeal text sent to POPLA. Couldn't post complete url links due to this website's anti-spamming policies, so you might need to copy and paste them to your web-browser. Also missing are some of the photos of the BP garage in Stansted.

POPLA Ref: *********
MET Parking Services PCN no: ********
A Notice to Registered Keeper was issued on 25th August 2017 and received by me,
***** *******, the registered keeper of the vehicle Reg: ****** for the alleged
contravention of ‘Breach of terms and conditions’’ at BP, Stansted. I am writing to
you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my
appeal for the following reasons.
1) MET Parking has deliberately chosen not to use the POFA 2012 and has not
shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the
charge (ref: POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).
2) Non-compliance with various requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
5) Amount demanded is a penalty
6) Photo evidence appears doctored.

1) MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA has not shown that the individual
who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case
Carly Law 6061796103)
MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA and make no mention of such or the
transfer of liability to the keeper under POFA 2012 in the Notice to Keeper I have
received.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA
must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the
driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about
liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the
owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was
entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right
not to name that person.
Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told
to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been
no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has
been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be
enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still
not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4
which they have not in this case. This applies regardless of when the first appeal
was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of
the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be
deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in
this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in
place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They
cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed
by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead
Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided
certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking
charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is
the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by
the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of
itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material
time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the
driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to
Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no
legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied
with then keeper liability does not generally pass."
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as
keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for
the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which in this case the
operator is not.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016,
where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the
charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator
continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am
confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After
considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the
driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to
demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I
am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of
appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in
appeal point 5 above.

2) Non-compliance with various requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
a) If MET Parking Services did wish to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in
Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, which they have not, the Notice to Keeper must meet the
strict requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012; paragraph 8 states
specifically “The notice must—specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” The notice to keeper
that I have received does not state the period of parking to which the notice relates,
only the time the PCN was issued.
Due to the omission of this detail the notice to keeper does not comply with Schedule
4 paragraph 6 of POFA 2012 and means that myself, the registered keeper of the
vehicle cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver
b) MET Parking does not comply with requirement set out in paragraph 9(2)(f) which
states:
The notice must— warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with
the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not
been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the
right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
MET Parking blatantly fails to mention the 28 days timeframe whereas it must have
set out clearly in the Notice to Registered Keeper when and in what circumstances
MET Parking would have the right to recover from the keeper the amount that
remains unpaid. Such omission invalidates the Notice to Registered Keeper that

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they
produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and
any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such
as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's
'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator
is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact
have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an
agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices,
that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting
drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action
regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this
operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges,
they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their
appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the
land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations,
including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be
subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted
that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this
huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar
'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that
site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were
unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme
Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts
only:

imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a
contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and
unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the
car park, according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this
case:
2.bp.blogspot.com/-
eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_00
1.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering'
and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed
them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract
and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas.
A number of the signs around the site are not illuminated either through poor
placement or faulty lighting (see image 1 below). The reported date & time of the
alleged contravention is 07/02/17 at 19:23. Records show that, on this date, sunset
was timed at 17:01. Therefore, by 19:23, visibility of the already poorly legible signs
would have been drastically reduced when not properly illuminated. They are
unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly
illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It
is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information
into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one
which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

Image 1: Evidence of signage not illuminated, further reducing legibility (see yellow
circle pointed by arrow)
It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory
under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not
clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print and does not
feature at all on some of the signs (see images 2 and 3 below). Areas of this site are
unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking
charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a
driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

Image 2: Evidence that the signs setting out the terms and conditions are not made
prominent in and around this site. There is only one sign located on the far left end of
the car park in front of BP shop (see yellow arrow).

Image 3: Evidence that the sum of the parking charge in not displayed at all on the
sign positioned at the entrance to the site.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16,
where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a
busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and
understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In
addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...]
The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I
have allowed the appeal.''
From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed
inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the
operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of
lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .36 font size going by this guide:
www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed
here:
signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far
away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales
advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people
in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are
hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them,
design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
...and the same chart is reproduced here:
ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-
/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of
the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the
best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the
max viewing distance.''
So, a letter height of less than half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and
placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully
inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a
wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective
and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder
(and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.
Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with
expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms)
should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY
clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in
the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the
'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all
information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be
displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with
fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer
notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is
expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that
the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000]
EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT
deemed bound by them.
This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my
argument, not the operator's case:
bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not
seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has
not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there
is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not
seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear
finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was
not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the
car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.
So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and
(from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that
date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this
operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock
examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be
read from a car before parking and believe that the photographic evidence I have
submitted here supports this view. Mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the
(alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

5) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights
Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised
by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider
the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was
neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone
consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage
cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

6) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the
vehicle – most notably the time stamps. By close examination of the photographs,
the details are added as an overlay boxes on-top of the photos in the upper left hand
corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free
photo-editing software to add these white boxes and text with authentic looking
metadata. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC,
who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.
I would challenge MET Parking Services to prove that a stationary, highly advanced
camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera
location etc.). I would also challenge MET Parking Services that they possess the
technology to generate these precise types of photographs, as the date stamps have
been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more
sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data)
I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

yorkshirebloke

Guys just to add some information for you, I have recently taken a PCN to POPLA and won the case, here is the link to the post for your perusal!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5726075


Thanks to all those who offered advice.

Panzellus

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5707549

Operator: Car Parking Partnership (CPP)

Verification Code: 3582497009

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Linda McMillan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is as follows: • He states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible form all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. He states that the signs offer no contract that a driver can accept: • He states that there is no evidence that any contravention took place: • The appellant states that there is no landowner authority allowing the operator to issue and pursue charges on this site: • The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle: The appellant has submitted an eight page document expanding on the above. This includes undated images.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. 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 appellant states that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle, however he has nominated himself as the vehicle driver in his appeal to the operator. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, for the purpose of this appeal, my report will focus on the issue raised regarding landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided evidence of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming it had the authority to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the day in question. I am satisfied therefore, that the operator has not shown that it had sufficient authority to issue this charge on the day in question. I note the appellant has raised other issues and has submitted a full explanation and images to support his appeal .However, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Therefore, from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly.

claxtome

Premier Park Dixon Street, Warrington

POPLA Code: 6662547285
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5693229

Premier Park decided to not contest the Appeal so Appeal is successful.

Gist of case - Was in an ANPR car park for 5 1/2 mins tried but couldn't pay so left. Main defence was on grace period.

Thanks to this forum for all the help.

dkmaxx

Lots of my points ignored,
Size of lettering on the signage, proof of contract between landowner. circumstances on leaving the car park.evidence to show the pay and display and APNR are linked.

The appellant’s case is that insufficient grace period was given. The appellant has questioned landowner authority. He says that there is inadequate signage at the site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I feel it appropriate to state that when submitting an appeal to the operator the appellant has identified himself as the driver of the vehicle. As such, the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) will not be considered in this appeal. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “Parking tariffs apply between 8am-11pm, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant purchased insufficient parking time. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 12:27 and exiting at 17:02, totalling a stay of four hours and 35 minutes. The appellant states insufficient grace period was given. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.4 states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. 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.” The operator has provided a whitelist lookup, which shows the appellant purchased a ticket at 12:35, which expired at 16:35. The appellant exited the site at 17:02, 27 minutes after the parking session expired. I do not consider 27 minutes a reasonable grace period to vacate the site. I note the appellant’s comments that the operator has not provided evidence of the time the ticket was purchased; however as stated the operator has provided a whitelist lookup which confirms the timings of the parking session. Furthermore, I note the appellant has stated it took time to purchase a ticket due to a queue at the payment machine; however, the appellant purchased a ticket at 12:35, eight minutes after entering the site. I therefore consider this time reasonable. As such, I am satisfied the operator has provided sufficient grace for the appellant to purchase a ticket and to vacate the site. The appellant has questioned landowner authority. The operator has produced a witness statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. He says that there is inadequate signage at the site. The British Parking Association Code (BPA) of Practice under, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Furthermore section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the car park in question and also including a site map demonstrating the location of the signage. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Furthermore, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. I note the appellant’s comments that the ANPR does not match with the timings of the payment machine. In response to this, the operator has stated, “Initially, ParkingEye would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality, and have built up this expertise with almost 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured. We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. ParkingEye is regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations. Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. If the driver had concerns about the validity of the signage and did not feel that, as a result, they could comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant purchased insufficient parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.