Parkwatch ticket

Ruby82

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Zara Parkinson

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator, Park Watch has issued a PCN for not parking wholly within a marked bay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that the signage on the site is inadequate. She is of the opinion that due to this no contract was formed. The appellants states that she does not believe that the operator has the authority to manage this site and issue PCN’s.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has indicated that she is the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxx. As such, I must consider if the parking operator has met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which, if strict requirements are met, allows a parking operator to transfer the liability for a parking charge notice (PCN) from the driver of a vehicle to the keeper of a vehicle. Section 9, sub paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states; “The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. Furthermore, Section 9 sub paragraph 5 states; “The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” On review of the evidence provided to me, I am satisfied that the operator has adhered to the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The PCN was attached to the windscreen of vehicle xxxxxx on the date of contravention 3 October 2017. As no response was received from the driver of the vehicle, the operator requested the keepers details from the DVLA on 1 November 2017. I will therefore be considering the appellants liability as registered keeper of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of this site, Deepdale Shopping Park state: “This land is private property, Park within the white lines of the parking bay only”. “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions may result in a parking charge”. Further, the terms state: “£100 parking charge reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days”. The operator, Park Watch has issued a PCN for not parking wholly within a marked bay. The operator has provided time stamped photographs taken by its parking warden. These captured the vehicle parked on site in the centre of two click and collect bays at 14:46 on 3 October 1017. The appellant states that the signage on the site is inadequate. She is of the opinion that due to this no contract was formed. As the appellant has questioned the signage at the site I must consider if the parking operator has met the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice which outlines the minimum requirements in relation to signage. In response, the operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states the following: “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. Furthermore, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The appellants states that she does not believe that the operator has the authority to manage this site and issue PCN’s. In response the appellant has provided a copy of its license agreement signed by the landowner, in October 2015. The BPA Code of Practice states in section 7.1, “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 produced, copy of its license agreement signed by both the landowner, in October 2015 to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant chose to stay, therefore accepted the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to her. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.



Please can you tell me whats the next step and is it worth fighting it.
Its very disappointing.

Coupon-mad

You said:

i haven't received anything else through the post.
Other than the pcn on the windscreen and appeal refusal email.

But POPLA said:

On review of the evidence provided to me, I am satisfied that the operator has adhered to the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The PCN was attached to the windscreen of vehicle xxxxxx on the date of contravention 3 October 2017. As no response was received from the driver of the vehicle, the operator requested the keepers details from the DVLA on 1 November 2017.

...but they didn't actually say 'and the operator then issued a Notice to Keeper that they have provided in evidence'...

...so, in the evidence pack, was there a NTK dated November? You said there was no NTK.

Show us the evidence pack NTK, if you can still access it.

If there was no NTK in evidence, POPLA have screwed up, again.

Ruby82

I received a pcn on windscreen and a reminder notice through the post.
When i uploaded it here Somebody said thats not a ntk is just a reminder notice of the fine.

KeithP

An image of the NtK is linked from post #39.

Ruby82

CASTLE replied #41 its not an NTK but just a reminder


What would i need to do now could any one provide any help.?

KeithP

Ruby82 wrote: »

CASTLE replied #41 its not an NTK but just a reminder.

But was corrected in post #45.

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

There won’t have been a letter headed Notice to Keeper. This was initially a windscreen ticket issued on 3/10/17. With the 28 day period before access to the DVLA database the earliest the first letter to the keeper could have been issued is 3/11/17. Date of issue - 3/11/17.

Treat as a formal Notice to Keeper and pick holes in it in the context of PoFA Schedule 4, and in particular para 8.

Umkomaas did put right the info about the NTK 'reminder' as above. But yes it's not a bad version in wording, so I can see why POPLA say it's OK. So what, is the answer, it's only POPLA.

So you lost at POPLA, big deal really! It's only Park watch, no-one pays just because they lose at POPLA. Tons of threads like yours - including TODAY!

Obvious forum search is this, below, I would hope & expect you've already looked at the forum & searched, rather than staying here and panicking?

POPLA lost

Do search the forum for those words rather than us repeating what we say on every thread the same.

Ruby82

What is my chances and next steps now

Coupon-mad

Cross posted. Please search the forum! Staying isolated on a thread does not help you.

This is NO BIG DEAL.

Ruby82

Ok thanks
I am abit worried if it all ends up with court costs.