Advice needed

wishmun

Hi,

Unfortunately my appeal was unsuccessful. Below please have a look at the decision details:

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name xxxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the charge for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or for remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises the following grounds for appeal: • Frustration of contract: He states that the contract would expect to begin and end at the times stated on the Pay & Display ticket purchased. He states that the contract could not be performed as the payment machine was not in use even though the driver attempted to put money into the machine • He states that there is no evidence of landowner authority • The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and states that there is no contact between the operator and the driver or registered keeper. • The appellant questions the accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition(ANPR) cameras. • The appellant states that the signs are not prominent or legible form all parking spaces. The appellant has submitted a xx-page word document expanding on the above. The appellant has included copies of templated internet judgements to support his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the operator has issued the PCN for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or for remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) and states that there is no contact between the operator and the driver or registered keeper. However, on reviewing the document, I can see that it complies with the relevant sections of PoFA2012. This clearly advises the keeper that he has 29 days to supply the driver details or the keeper will be held responsible for the charges. The keeper in this case is the appellant. As he did not supply the driver details, he is now responsible for the charge. He states that he would expect the contract to begin and end at the times stated on the Pay & Display ticket purchased. He states that the contract could not be performed as the payment machine was not in use even though the driver attempted to put money into the machine 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 clearly state: “Parking tariffs apply during the hours shown, 7 days a week” and “Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine”. 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. I note that the appellant states that attempts were made to pay for parking. However, the fact remains no payment was made. 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 driver felt that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, as in not being able to pay for parking, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. However, the driver chose to remain on site without making payment. Additionally, the operator’s phone number appears on the signage had the driver had issues paying for parking. No contact was made, therefore, no provision could be made. Furthermore, the operator has provided a system print out that shows that other motorists were able to purchase parking time. Therefore, I am satisfied that at least one payment machine was working. The appellant also had the option to pay by phone, by text or on-line. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at xx:xx and exiting at xx:xx after a stay of xx minutes. He states that there is no evidence of landowner authority Section 7.1 of the 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 information 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. Our view on this is that if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The appellant questions the accuracy of the ANPR cameras. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, we do receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, we look to see if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator’s evidence pack. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. The appellant states that the signs are not prominent or legible form all parking spaces. The British Parking Association 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”. From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that there is signage at the entrance to the car park and multiple signs are located throughout the site. I am satisfied therefore, that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Having considered the signage, I am satisfied that it is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. There is no requirement to place signs in every singe parking bay or space. As the appellant states that an attempt was made to pay for parking, the driver must have been able to read the signage, otherwise he would not have known how much to attempt to pay. In this case, the driver entered onto private land freely and in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. While I acknowledge all of the appellant’s comments, and the numerous templated examples he has supplied, these do not exempt him from complying with the terms of parking. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

---

Not so happy,

Mickey

Snakes_Belly

There may have been another machine but was it visible and signed? The terms and conditions may have been in very small letters.