POPLA Submission for PCN at Arena Shopping Center Coventry

Umkomaas

What do you recommend now?

Putting some paragraphs into that massive wall of text so that is readable and so as to give you half a chance of someone going through the detail and then advising accordingly.

Coupon-mad

whitepanda wrote: »

Unfortunately after a long wait I was unsuccessful as shown below. What do you recommend now?

When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the signage explaining the terms and conditions, as displayed on signs throughout the site.

The signage states: “THIS LAND IS PRIVATE PROPERTY…Failure to comply with the following terms & conditions may result in a parking charge…Always Park Within Lines…£100 Parking Charge”.

The operator has provided images which show the appellant’s vehicle, XXXXXXX, The vehicle is not parked within the lines of the bay. The operator has issued the PCN as motorist did not park the vehicle wholly within a bay.

The appellant’s case is that the operator that issued the PCN is not a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) despite displaying the BPA logos on the reverse of the PCN.

- The appellant says that the operator does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and does not have the right to issue PCNs or obtain DVLA records under the relevant data protection legislation.

- The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver and that it has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

- The appellant says that the operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority and it does not have proprietary interest in the land.

- The appellant says the signage in the specific location that the vehicle was parked is insufficient and does not draw motorists attention to the sum of the PCN.

- The appellant says the signage at the entrance of the car park cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

- The appellant says there is a known clause in the operator’s contract with the landowner that states motorists should not be pursued for a payment of a PCN if it is their first offence.

- The appellant says the vehicle was parked slightly on corner hatching as a large 4x4 vehicle was parked so close to the line in the next space.

- The appellant says there was no room for the passenger to get out of the vehicle or the driver of the 4x4 to get back in their vehicle.

- The appellant says they parked in a sensible manner so that they were not causing an obstruction.

- The appellant says they PCN is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. The appellant says they £100 charge far exceeds the cost to the landowner and represents a penalty.

As the driver has not been identified within the appeal to POPLA or to the operator, I need to ensure that the operator has shown strict compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with PoFA 2012 and as such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.

Operators do not have to be a member of the BPA to issue PCNs. I can confirm that Defence Systems Limited t/a Park Watch are a member of the BPA. POPLA can only assess PCNs issued by operators that are members of the BPA. If the operator was not a member of the BPA, I would be unable to assess this appeal.

If the appellant has genuine concerns about whether the operator is entitled to obtain DVLA records under the relevant data protection legislation, they may wish to speak to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It is not within POPLA’s remit to assess complaints about data protection.

The operator has provided a copy of a call off order that is signed on behalf of the landowner to demonstrate that it has the landowner’s authority to enforce the parking restrictions and issue PCNs at the site between 16 September 2016 and 30 September 2019.

I have not received evidence that Tesco is the landowner or there is a well known cause that the operator should not pursue motorists for payment of a PCN if it is the first time they contravened the terms and conditions.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter private land, they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions displayed throughout the site.

While I agree that the appellant may not be able to read all the information on the entrances signs, I am satisfied that the entrance signs are sufficient to make motorists aware that the site is managed and there are terms and conditions that they should be aware of. The signage within the site is sufficient to make motorists aware that they are required to park within the lines of a bay. The signage also makes motorists aware of the consequence for failing to comply.

The operator had provided photographs to demonstrate that the signage was visible from the area that the appellant parked.

It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. I acknowledge that a large vehicle was parked close to the line in the neighbouring bay and the appellant’s vehicle may not have caused an obstruction; however, if the appellant felt that they could not comply with the terms and conditions by parking within the lines of a bay, the appellant could have looked for another bay. Alternatively, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator.

By remaining on the car park and parking their vehicle while they visited the stores on site, the appellant made use of the car park and accepted the terms and conditions displayed. As such, they were required to park within the lines.

The operator has provided photographs to demonstrate that the appellant’s vehicle was not parked within the lines. Accordingly, I must conclude that the motorist breached the terms and conditions of the car park.

The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis {snipped the POPLA dross template}.

As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient.

When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

As the operator has demonstrated that it issued the PCN correctly, I must refuse this appeal.

A standard POPLA refusal.

Search the forum for POPLA lost and sit tight like all the rest.