POPLA Decisions

Vagatha1

Hi,

below is my POPLA decision which got refused 

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They wanted to use the car park as they were meeting a friend, they read the signage, a few times as it was unclear if anyone could park and pay, or if it was for patrons of the church only. • The signage states tariffs, and underneath church patrons need to register their vehicle. • They thought anyone must be able to park, but church patrons can register. • They called the number on the signage as there was no option to pay at the site. • During the phone call they were told the location was invalid. • They entered the location number correctly a few times, with the same message. • They were told payment was not accepted at this time. • The church was closed, them and a women said not to park, they went back to their car and left the site. • They were in the car park for 10 minute trying numerous ways to pay. • There should be an allowance for people to walk up to signs and reading. • The parking operator is trying to charge £100 for 10 minutes, which is shocking, when it is impossible to pay. The appellant has provided a phone call, and screen shot from their mobile app as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator’s signage within the site state: “For use by Stockport Elim Church patrons only between Mon – Fri 8am to 6pm – tariff applies outside of these times Parking tariff applies Mon – Fri 6pm to 8am, Sat & Sun 12am to 12 pm”, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry at 11:23:50 and exit at 11:34:29 on a Friday confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for 10 minutes; it is evident time within the car park was during the period for permit holders only. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no permit registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the single Code of Practice and that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. As above, the appellant’s duration of stay was during the period for permit holders only, there is not option to pay during the period for permit holders only, which is why the appellant was unable to pay on the day, and which is why the message from the app told them to check the signage for more information. When parking on a private land, a motorist must be given reasonable time to decide whether they choose to accept the terms offered and remain at the site or reject the terms offered and leave the car park. If a motorist accepts the terms and parks, they must be allowed a period at the end of the contract to leave the car park. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case the consideration period is five minutes, which the appellant exceeded on the day. The appellant became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for 10 minutes. I acknowledge the appellant says the parking operator is charging £100 for minutes, 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 (www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html) should the appellant wish to read it. I appreciate the appellant did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that parking without a valid permit, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By parking on site without a valid permit, the appellant has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant parked without a permit, 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator