Captains Table Wells-Next-The-Sea POPLA Appeal

happychapdad

Thanks guys for:
1. spotting typos, and
2. for pointing out that additional evidence can be emailed.

It makes me sad that all of this time has to be spent to fight against these companies when you evidently do what you think is the right at the time.

Really do appreciate the role that your guys play.

Comments submitted.....just got to wait now. Hopefully have made it easier for POPLA and this appeal can be one of the 35% successes.

Cheers

happychapdad

Well. Obviously this appeal falls into the 65% Unsuccessful camp.

---

Decision

Unsuccessful


Assessor Name

Linda McMillan


Assessor summary of operator case


The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site without purchasing the required parking time.


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant raises several grounds for appeal. These are summarised below: • He states that sufficient funds were paid for the time spent in the car park: • He states that a reasonable grace period has not been allowed for the motorist to read the signs upon entry or to exit the site: • The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all areas of the car park: • He states that the operator has not shown that the individual is liable for the charge: • He states that the operator does not have the authority of the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN)’s on this land. The appellant expands on his points in a letter he has submitted.


Assessor supporting rational for decision


This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that the appellant is the driver and as such, liable for the charge. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) clearly states, “You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PlFA2012)…”. As the appellant has not supplied the operator with the driver details, I am satisfied that the notice has been issued correctly in line with PoFA2012 and as such, the keeper, in this case the appellant, is now liable for the charge. 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 the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all areas of the car park The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice under, Section 18 states, “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. It further states, “ You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that the drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where 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 supplied details showing the location of the signs throughout the site and as such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. I am also satisfied that the signage meets the minimum standard set out in the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can purchase additional time (if required) at the payment machines or by phone before leaving. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. To remain on site for up to one hour would cost £1.40 and for up to two hours, £2.80. I note from the tickets that the appellant has purchased, he paid £2.60. There is no tariff listed at this amount. Therefore, by not paying the correct amount for two hours, the vehicle was only authorised to park for one hour. The operator has also supplied a system print out that shows only one hour parking time was purchased.. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 15:11 and exiting at 16:30 after a stay of one hour and 18 minutes. The system print out shows the appellant purchased parking at 15:14 with an expiry time of 16:14. The appellant states that a grace period was not allowed to allow him to read the signs on entry and subsequently exit the site. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that operators “should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. The appellant purchased his parking three minutes after entering the site. Under “Grace Periods” section 13.4 it 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”. If the motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is “reasonable” for the purposes of Section 13.4, we would consider this to be parking. As the appellant remained on site for 16 minutes after the parking session had ended, and taking into account the size of the car park, we would consider this more than reasonable and would class it as parking. Furthermore, the appellant has not given any reason as to why he was delayed by 16 minutes exiting the site. Furthermore, the signage offers the motorist the opportunity to purchase further parking time to avoid the incurrence of a PCN. The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority of the landowner to operate on this site. 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 provided evidence of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming it had the authority to issue a PCN on the day in question. I am satisfied therefore, that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. By not purchasing parking time by paying the correct tariff, the appellant has not complied with the terms of the site. Therefore, from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Coupon-mad

To remain on site for up to one hour would cost £1.40 and for up to two hours, £2.80. I note from the tickets that the appellant has purchased, he paid £2.60.

I would see them in court, personally, for a few minutes 'overstay' which was more than covered at the advertised tariff rate. For the sake of 20p you would think a decent defence, put forward by an honest person, would be accepted as reasonable by a small claims Judge.

''Overstay'' more than paid for by ''Overpay''!

Worst case scenario, if you lose you'd pay £175 and no CCJ, nothing bad. No risk.