Help With PCN Please (Unclear Signage)

Apollo18

My appeal was unsuccessful.

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Rebecca Grimes
Assessor summary of operator case
the operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to No parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice as they were hidden from view as they were behind a canopy of trees and were covered in over-grown ivy also, there was no sign showing detailed terms and conditions and no sign was of the required size. The appellant states that a premium rate number is provided on the signs and the BPA logo is not displayed on the site. The appellant states that there are not any signs that can be viewed without leaving the vehicle and the entrance sign is placed several meters from the entrance, high on a wall at 90 degrees to the line of site of a driver approaching the car park making it impossible to see. The appellant states that the signs are neither lit by lighting nor made of retro-reflective material. The appellant states that the notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012 and there is no keeper liability, the appellant states they have received a non-PoFA version notice to owner and an owner is not legally the same as a keeper. The appellant states no notice to keeper has been provided. The appellant states that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers as the operator has no proprietary interest in the land.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I note that the operator has issued a notice to driver, and as such is pursuing the driver for payment of the PCN. The PCN is payable by the driver. The appellant is appealing the PCN as keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. The operator has the right to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle if payment of the PCN remains unpaid after 28 days. The operator has not sought keeper liability. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions in force at the site, by parking their vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked without clearly displaying a valid permit. Although there is a permit displayed in the vehicle, the operator states that this permit is not relevant to the site in question. The appellant does not dispute this. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs displayed in the parking area state; “Parking for permit holders only. A valid permit for this estate must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times”. Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs ‘must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand’. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. Further, the operator has provided a site map that confirms the location of the signs at the site. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (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.’ From the evidence operator, I am satisfied that the amount and location of the signs at the site is sufficient. The appellant states that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers as the operator has no proprietary interest in the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a Witness Statement, to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and I am satisfied that it has met the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. 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. If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

bod1467

The mind boggles. :eek:

The assessor has only picked out the part of POFA that allows a PPC to claim from a keeper, yet completely ignores the fact that there are proper LEGAL procedures to be followed before that liability transfer is lawful. So the assessor has just assumed the keeper was the driver.

Is this another case of a rebuttal being ignored?

Edna_Basher

Another case to add to the growing list of shockingly bad decisions from new POPLA.

It's abundantly clear that POPLA have failed to train their assessors on even the most basic points about Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

Whilst this particular assessor has merrily quoted Paragraph 4 (1) ("the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle"), she has completely overlooked the associated Paragraph 4 (2) (a) which sets out how this right applies only if the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met.

Umkomaas

This is going from bad to worse. We've very recently seen an almost identical decision with very similar wording. Another flawed template?

EDITED TO ADD

Yep, the opening of the assessment is identical - here it is. And it's the same Assessor - Rebecca Grimes

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5383551

Looks to me they are building up a bank of template statements to pick off the shelf.

I'll need a number 1, 3, 7 and 12 for this one ....... Unsuccessful! Next please.

Coupon-mad

Every person needs to complain about this, as mentioned in the similar thread. Shows who to complain to and what to say.

First complaint by email to complaints@popla.co.uk

as explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5380293

Quote the law and what it really says about the 'second condition for keeper liability'. POPLA cannot lawfully tell keepers to pay driver's charges without the POFA having been complied with by the operator to the letter of the statute!

If keeper liability was this simple, there would be no Schedule 4 of the POFA needed.

This Assessor Rebecca Grimes - and Robert Harrison - have not been trained properly in the applicable law. That's disgraceful.

In your case, this is also wrong:

Although there is a permit displayed in the vehicle, the operator states that this permit is not relevant to the site in question. The appellant does not dispute this.

You did point out in the comments that they had not evidenced that a 'wrong' permit was displayed and in fact they showed a photo showing a permit displayed. You did dispute it as keeper, didn't you? This is a secondary criticism of her decision though, the misapplication of keeper liability and abject and woeful ignorance of the POFA is the biggie.

Apollo18

You did dispute it as keeper, didn't you?

I do not remember specifically disputing it as keeper (and at no point stated who was driving) but under Assessor supporting rational for decision the assessor states "The appellant is appealing the PCN as keeper of the vehicle"

Regarding the permit, I commented that the PCN was issued for 'No permit' but that there was a permit displayed in the car as evidenced by the photo produced by Wing (they did not issue the PCN for 'No valid permit'

Coupon-mad

So that is indeed a second point to complain about. Main one = their Assessor has not been properly trained in the POFA and is trying to make registered keepers pay parking charges in cases where no keeper liability applies. Quote the second condition for keeper liability.

Apollo18

I have been overseas for a while and I'm afraid I did not get round to sending the complaint to POPLA.
I was wondering if there have been any updates or any other similar cases that have concluded before I put together the letter of complaint? Thanks

Coupon-mad

Loads of cases like it.

Try seaching the forum for 'ISPA' to see what other people did recently. That POPLA decision was plain wrong, you appealed AS KEEPER and were not liable in law, no assumption of who was driving can be made and CERTAINLY NOT by POPLA!

Apollo18

Thanks, I will do.