Windscreen ticket on hire vehicle in own spot

Mr_Stroopwafel

Won at POPLA - thanks all for the help!

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Adele Brophy

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to the vehicle not being authorised to park and a valid permit was not clearly displayed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the alleged offence did not occur and that the operator has failed to comply with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act (POFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the operator has no evidence that the person the person they are pursuing is liable for the charge and that the operator does not have the landowners authority. The appellant has advised that vehicle was parked with the landlords and tenants permission. The appellant further advises that the signage was inadequate and due to this no contract was entered into by the driver due to this. The appellant lastly advises that the operator has breached both the consumer rights act 2015 the consumer contracts regulations 2013, and no grace period has been allowed.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) must be adhered to. Section 9 (2) advises that the notice must: (f) 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; From the evidence provided, I can see a notice to driver was issued to the vehicle on the day of the parking event. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver of the vehicle. 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. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal; however I have not considered these as I have allowed the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Great - it seems one of the last things ISPA's current board did was to put a bomb under POPLA to drum it into them that keepers (who have not been shown to be the driver) cannot be told they are liable for a non-POFA charge.

Well done!