MET McDonalds POPLA appeal - Help Appreciated

Apttfr

Part 1

Hi All, here's my Met McDonalds, I think i've taken all my personal information out of it but if you see anything that shouldn't be in here please let me know.

Also as a side note, how much effort should I put into the inadequate signage in my appeal? I feel like I can add more but looking at some of the POPLA decisions I feel like its never upheld due to signage?

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXXXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XXXXXXXXX acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Met Parking Services – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on XXXXXXXXX and rejected via an email dated XXXXXXXXX. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
 

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

Do I need to add more details here?

Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

The recommendation reads:

“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”

This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions (in this case in the dark with no lighting), decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Euro Car Parks claim was 10 minutes 48 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

a) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
b) The lengthiness of Met Parking Services’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text.

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions
• Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Figure 1 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

Figure 1: Beavis Sign
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically and sparsely placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read before the action of parking and leaving the car.
Met Parking Services main signs at McDonalds Cramlington is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see figure 2)

Figure 2-McDonalds Cramlington-Main car park sign close-up
The image in figure 2 shows a close up of the main cark park sign in the same lighting conditions as the date/time for which the PCN has been issued. (N.B. This image was taken whist standing at ground level looking up, the camera was held above head hight so as to capture as close an image as possible, and therefore it cannot be assumed that this is the view a person would have when standing below the sign. It should be emphasised that, when views from ground level, the text is even more difficult to read than it is in Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows a wider angle view of the same main car park sign, giving some context to the size/location of the sign shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows clear evidence that:
• The sign is positioned high on a pole, making it difficult to read.

Figure 3-McDonalds Cramlington-Main car park sign close-up
Figure 2 and Figure 3 clearly show that Met Parking Services signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
The section in white as the bottom of the sign (see figure 2) that is apparently warns of the parking charge notice is in a tiny text that is impossible to read without a step ladder, further examination revealed the bottom of the read and white signs shown in Figure 2 and Figure 2 are 7 feet above the floor. Why is something so important so small, illegible and high up? Furthermore white text on a red background is difficult to read.
Indeed, in relation to design principles, it is widely known that colour contrast plays a key role in terms of accessibility as it “affects some people’s ability to perceive information (in other words to be able to receive the information visually).” (Government Digital Service, 17 June 2016). Whilst this web page discusses design principles in relation to web design, the same points are true of print-based materials which would include signage.
Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:
“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”
Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.
It cannot be reasonably assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park, nor parked near one.

Figure 4-Approach to car park indicating lack of signage
Figure 4 shows the approach to car park with the image taken with the same lighting conditions as per the occasion for which the PCN has been issued and also represents the angle at which it would be approached in a vehicle.. The entrance to the car park is on the left just behind the grey car which is shown more clearly in the right hand image. This image clearly shows heavily obscured signage on approach to the car park.
The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs. Following further research (on foot, during daylight), it is not disputed that Euro Car Parks entrance sign meets these requirements in terms of wording/layout – in fact it is almost a direct copy of the example the BPA provide. What is disputed are other requirements the BPA sets in Appendix B, specifically:

1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead (it’s not even visible), nor is it readable and understandable at all times. It is not directly lit nor does it benefit from lighting used for the parking area. It may well be made of a retro-reflective material but this is irrelevant in this case as the positioning of the entrance sign is as such that vehicle headlights will never shine on it sufficiently so as to illuminate it.

To expand upon this point, further research confirmed there is one sign at the entrance to Met Parking Services McDonalds Car Park. Figure 5 shows the location of this sign.

Figure 5-Position of entrance sign and path of vehicle upon entry
The entrance sign to the left of the entrance (from the perspective of a vehicle entering the car park) contains a substantial amount of text as shown in Figure 6. Most of the text is very small, impossible to read from a moving vehicle due to the fact that it is heavily obscured on approach as demonstrated in Figure 4, and when the sign is visible it is in the middle of performing a turn into a T-junction which requires attention on the road and not the sign. Additionally it is difficult to read in day light and while on foot as there is no foot path to the sign which then requires standing on the curb of the T-Junction while cars are turning in.


Specifically, I will discuss three factors that are key in establishing non-compliance with the BPA CoP (Appendix ; the height of the sign; the distance of the sign from the approach road; the direction the sign faces in relation to approaching traffic.
 
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. 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. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3. The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation23
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

5. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

Met Parking Services’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at McDonalds Cramlington.”

The NtK separately states the Vehicle “entered McDonalds Cramlington at XXXXXX and departed at XXXXXX. At no stage do Met Parking Services explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required be PoFA 2012.

It is not the gift of Met Parking Services to substitute “entry/ exit” or length of stay” in place of POFA requirement – “period of parking”- and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By Virtue of the nature of ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Met Parking Services are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require Met Parking Services to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/ time (for the duration claimed and at the location stated in the NtK.


6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must

refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location.

The images have also been cropped significantly, as these are not the original images I require Met Parking Services limited to produce evidence of the original “un-cropped” images containing the required time and date stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

Apttfr

Part 2

7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Met Parking Services’ Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number place corresponding to that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to keeper states:

“On XXXXXX vehicle XXXXXX entered the car park at (894) McD Cramlington, Cramlington, NE23 6DY and departed at XXXXXX on XXXXXX”

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking, By Met Parking services own admission on the NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit times of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot be reasonably assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.

I require Met Parking Services to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions) are of significant importance to this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number place allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times 112 minutes apart, 22 minutes over the supposed maximum permitted stay which is within the grace limit when you factor in 11 minute to both exit and enter the car park . It is vital that Met Parking Services produce the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

Apttfr

***bump***

Apologies for the early bump, but I've realised I need to sent it off by tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

You don't send it off (by post) anywhere and you have 32 days (not 28) honestly.

Bumping for others to comment in the morning, and sorry we ignored you thus far!

Apttfr

Hey, I got my POPLA appeal back. It was unsuccessful. I guess its now the waiting game of ignoring debt collectors and potentially court papers.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: • Grace period. • The entrance signs are inadequate. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. • No evidence of landowner authority. • No evidence of period parked. Notice to Keeper does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • Vehicle images contained in the parking charge notice are non-compliant. • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he is the registered keeper. I will therefore be considering his responsibility as keeper of the vehicle. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. 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 operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY AT ALL TIMES. PLEASE READ THIS SIGN CAREFULLY. THIS CAR PARK IS FOR THE USE OF MCDONALD’S CUSTOMERS WHILST ON THE PREMISES ONLY. MAXIMUM STAY IS 90 MINUTES. £100 Parking Charge.” The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:53pm and exited the site 14:46pm. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of 112 minutes. 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 a contract which confirms that it can operate on the land in question and had the permissions to issue parking charges to motorists. In the BPA Code of Practice, section 18.3 “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. 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.” Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.” I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. Section 13.4 in the BPA Code of Practice 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.” After reviewing the operator’s evidence pack, I do not consider 22 minutes to exit the car park a reasonable grace period. 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. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant’s explanation of events. But physical evidence, such as a receipt to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. The onus is on the driver to ensure the maximum free period is not exceeded at any time. I note the appellant’s comments and their reason for parking at the site in question. However, in their appeal the appellant has not provided any evidence to support their submission. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions offered at the site. Ultimately, 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 appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.