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

Umkomaas

Any chance of some paragraph breaks to make the wall of text readable?  Name of PPC would also provide some context (and link to any thread you have previously posted regarding the PCN, please). 

Whatever, you know not to pay this, don't you? Only do so if a Judge so requires. 

Ralph-y

the poster has an on going thread with more details ...

Bazarius

Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL - Parked  on Red Route 

Successful

Assessor Name

Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist parked on a red route.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that:

• They made a lawful drop off under Transport for London guidance.

 • The vehicle stopped briefly in a marked ‘taxi drop-off point only’.

 • A contravention did not occur.

 • The operator has failed to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked, left unattended, or remained beyond the necessary time for drop-off.

 • The operator has misled them by asseting that the vehicle was parked in a taxi rank, thereby implying that private hire vehicles or non-taxis are prohibited from stopping, which is incorrect.

• By conflating a drop-off bay with a taxi rank, the operator has misrepresented the nature of the location and the applicable restrictions.

 • They relied on the bay’s designation and signage, which permits dropping off.

 • The operator’s attempt to enforce taxi rank restrictions in a drop-off bay is procedurally unfair and legally baseless.

• The fact that the bay was clearly marked as a taxi drop off point overrides general red route restrictions.

• The signage is contradictory and ambiguous, and does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. 

• The location is governed by Railway Byelaws and it is therefore not relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The operator cannot pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.

 • The operator has shown a lack of transparency which undermines the legitimacy of the parking charge notice and violates the principles of procedural fairness.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has also provided comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal with my reasoning below: The terms and conditions of the site state that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued for parking on a red route. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked on a red route.

Within its evidence file, the operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked on double red lines. However, I can see that the area is clearly marked as a drop-off zone for taxis. While dropping off is generally considered parking for purposes of parking management when assessing a POPLA appeal, the terms and conditions appear to contradict the nature of the area.

Having reviewed the operator’s case summary, it is evident that taxis are permitted to use the area for purposes of dropping off, but parking is not permitted. As such, I must consider whether the motorist parked.

Although both the operator and the appellant have made reference to Transport for London guidance, the event occurred on private land where this does not apply unless specified. I understand that the operator has differentiated between Licenced Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles, but the markings indicate that dropping off is permitted for ‘taxis’ and does not specify. Within its evidence file, the operator has provided images of the appellant’s vehicle stationary within the taxi drop-off zone.

Having reviewed this evidence, I have been unable to determine whether the appellant was making a drop off, or was simply parked. I appreciate that the vehicle was there for five minutes, but this is not indicative of a drop-off or lack thereof. As such, in light of the evidence provided, I have been unable to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly.

Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal and comments, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Umkomaas

@Bazarius, thanks for update above. Is there the name of the PPC available please, for context?

Bazarius

Umkomaas said:

@Bazarius, thanks for update above. Is there the name of the PPC available please, for context?

Apologies. Added to above 

pandh

I believe I'm just to post the decision here, and will post the full case in a new thread.

This is copied from the PDF letter. I've added some extra paragraphs since the assessor provided a single block of text. The person who parked had to park with difficulty in a non-disabled parking space, and thus obviously didn't see the sign present in those bays.

Parking manager: Minster Baywatch

-----
Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the parking fee to cover the full duration of their stay wasn’t paid in full.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: 1. They feel the parking operator are deliberately attempting to deceive visitors to increase profits as they changed the simple pay on exit with automatic calculation to hidden pay on arrival and many visitors have reported this in the local paper. 2. Motorists put the wrong calculation when entering and the operator have not changed it back despite public uproar. 3.The site doesn’t have parking warden’s which explains why their wife couldn't find a disabled bay and suffered a lot of pain due to needing to climb through the other door and they questioned that the British Parking Association (BPA) member have to monitor disabled bays for abuse. 4. The operator's behaviour is why the government are scrutinising private parking firms. 5. The car park used to befree for Blue Badge holders but are no longer and the signage doesn’t make it clear. 6. There is no entrance entering the one way entrance and the signage wasn’t visible when entering the lift area. 7.The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section and the operator never contested the image demonstrating no signage at the entrance of the property and the sitemap proves their point. 8. The signage is behind one as one enter the lift area. 9. They questioned where the parking machines are, as they can only see one for Barnaby Wilson. 10. The operator have redacted the landowner’s name and the other operators, and they want the landowner’s name to complain to them. The appellant included photographic evidence of the site entrance in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. 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. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage on site forms the basis of the contract. The signage clearly demonstrates that the car park is a pay on arrival car park.

Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included of the entrance image which is not dated. This is not sufficient to rebut the operator's dated images. In relation to point 1, 2 and 4.POPLA’s remit is to assess if a PCN has been issued correctly based on facts, relevant law, and the applicable code of practice. We are only able to assess this case and are unable to discuss the appellant's feelings or opinions about the operator and the changes to the car park. Any comments about the changes to the terms and conditions and the unhappiness of other motorists would need to be raised with the operator directly outside of this appeals service.

In relation to point 3: This comment would again need to be raised with the operator directly as the reason for the PCN was for not paying for parking. Any comments about the lack of parking wardens on site monitoring the carpark is out of POPLA’s remit unless the reason for the PCN was the appellant parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.

In relation to point 5: This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community(IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1October 2024. 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 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. 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. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the single code of practice. Furthermore, section 4.1 of the Single Code of Practice states there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions that can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, to allow disabled drivers to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park in the car park. In this case I can see clear signs in the disabled bays for motorists to see.

The appellant stated there was no signage by the lift area. There is no obligation for the operator to have additional signage in the lift area as they are only obliged to have one sign that is visible from the car, which the operator's evidence pack demonstrates is in place. I can see the disabled bays with clear signage is on page 51 and 78. Furthermore, where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. I can see the signage is dated 19/03/25 and there is clear temporary signage to inform motorists of the terms and conditions change. This is clear on page 26 of the operator's evidence pack.

They raised new points in the motorist's comments section in relation to the parking machines and the landowner details. It should be noted that the motorist comments section is a place to expand upon the original grounds given and not to be used as a platform to introduce new grounds that the operator has not had the opportunity to review. As such, the new grounds of appeal given within the motorist comments section have not been considered in this appeal response.

Ultimately, the crux of this case is the responsibility lies with the motorist to keep to the terms and conditions of the car park. Even with a car park that they use often, motorists must regularly read signage to ensure they are aware of any terms and conditions of the car park. To prevent the same issue occurring, it may be beneficial to ensure they read the signage to understand what is expected of them when they park in the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant never paid for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

SingleQuestionAccount6132

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Jamie M
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being present at the site during the restricted no parking period.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. No evidence of period parked, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • No contractual offer, signage is forbidding, not an invitation to park. • Contradictions between the PCN allegation vs signage wording. • They have questioned the signage at the site. • Grace periods. • Vehicle images contained within the PCN. • Questioned the cameras at the site. • No evidence of landowner authority. • The appellant has mentioned various county court cases within their appeal. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided photos of signage taken at day and during the site, images from the dash camera from the car when entering and exiting the site 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 explains to motorists that no parking is allowed within the site between the hours of 00:30 and 05:30, 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 23:51:56 and exit the following day at 00:49:17 confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for 57 minutes 21 seconds, it is evident the vehicle was present at the site during the no parking period.

I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. While the appellant has mentioned various county court cases within their appeal, as county court cases cannot send a precedent, these will not be considered. It is not the role of POPLA to collect evidence or contact witnesses.

In assessing this appeal I will look at the evidence that is provided to me from both parties and make a decision based on this alone. Each party is invited to submit evidence that they believe will strengthen their case.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.

As the PCN displays the vehicle entry, exit time, vehicle registration, date, and name of the site, vehicle duration, and contravention, I am satisfied the NTK clearly explains the period the vehicle was parked.

Further, when appealing to the parking operator, the appellant and registered keeper, (me), admitting to being the driver of the vehicle on the day, the provisions of PoFA does not apply, and it is (me) liability for the PCN I will be considering at the driver of the vehicle.

While I acknowledge the issue reason within the PCN, I am satisfied that it sufficiently states the circumstances that caused the PCN to be issued. As the operator would not necessarily know at this stage the circumstances that caused the issue, I am satisfied the issue reason within the PCN covers this sufficiently.

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 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A.

The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. 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.

Section 3.1.6 of the Single Code of Practice states that signs should be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions, including during dusk and in the dark if the land is accessible at those times. The signs must be installed at a height that takes into account where the signs will be viewed from, and whether vehicle headlights will illuminate the signs in the dark. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, including when a motorist is allowed to park at the site.


The parking operator has provided a series of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. The appellant has provided images from the vehicle’s dash cam, which shows signage is perfectly visible during night conditions, it also shows the vehicle was parked in extremely close to signage. The appellant’s own evidence demonstrates that signage was visible when the appellant parked within the site on the day. Despite the appellant’s comments 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. As the vehicle was within the site for 57 minutes 21 seconds, I am satisfied the appellant has sufficient opportunity to seek out and read the signage.

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.

The phrase 'No Parking Allowed' constitutes an offer. By choosing to park in a designated 'No Parking' area, a motorist is deemed to have accepted that offer and thereby enters into a contract with the parking operator. If the motorist did not wish to accept the terms of this offer, they had the opportunity to decline by leaving the site before the restriction came into effect, and park elsewhere. The appellant became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for 57 minutes 21 seconds, and entered into a contract with the parking operator.

While the appellant has questioned the images of their vehicle within the PCN, the appellant appellant’s images from dash cam footage has not cast doubt on this, as the images are from selected times, the appellant had the opportunity to provide their full dash cam footage video but chose not to. I must accept them to be true and accurate reflect of the movements of the vehicle. The parking operator has shown within their evidence their cameras are located at the entrance/exit of the site, the appellant’s evidence has again not cast doubt on this.

The appellant entered the site at 23:51:56 on the 14 August, leaving at 00:49:17 on the 15 August. The no parking period starts at 00:30, it is evident the appellant spent 19 minutes 17 seconds within the site during the period when no parking is allowed. When parking on private land car park, motorists must be given sufficient time to decide whether to accept the terms and remain on site or reject them and leave, known as a consideration period.

If they choose to accept the terms and park, they must also be allowed a period at the end of their stay to exit the car park, known as a grace period.

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 period is five minutes, which is solely a period to determine the terms, which as above the appellant had ample chance as they parked very close to signage. 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.

In this case the grace period is 10 minutes. Neither the consideration period nor the grace period constitutes free parking and should not be treated as such and is not added together. Further, the consideration period is not extended from the vehicle’s entry time, to when the no parking period starts. As the appellant left the site 19 minutes 17 seconds after 00.30, it is explicitly clear the parking operator has allowed the appellant a grace period before issuing the PCN, which they are not obligated to extend. It is the motorist’s (appellant) to leave the site within time, which they failed to do on the day.

Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant has failed to provide any evidence to suggest the relevant authority is not in place.

The appellant has made various and several comments regarding to the amount of the PCN, which has 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.

I acknowledge that the appellant did not intend to breach the terms and conditions. However, it is clear that a breach did occur, as the appellant parked within the site during the period when no parking is allowed. The signage at the site is clear that parking within a no parking area, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park within a no parking area the appellant has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant parked within the site when no parking is allowed, 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. Although the appellant has commented on the parking operator's evidence, I have not identified any details that significantly affect my evaluation of the PCN. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Ralph-y

"The phrase 'No Parking Allowed' constitutes an offer. By choosing to park in a designated 'No Parking' area, a motorist is deemed to have accepted that offer and thereby enters into a contract with the parking operator. If the motorist did not wish to accept the terms of this offer, they had the opportunity to decline by leaving the site before the restriction came into effect, and park elsewhere. The appellant became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for 57 minutes 21 seconds, and entered into a contract with the parking operator. "

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

no paying ...... 

doubledotcom

The phrase 'No Parking Allowed' constitutes an offer.

If any further evidence were required to prove that some POPLA assessors are intellectually malnourished morons requiring better education and training for their role, that statement proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.