Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal

notparked

I think there are crossed wires here.
My case was successfully appealed.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74907247#Comment_74907247


popla ref. 2412208145

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Carly Law


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

When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.”
As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 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. The Act then moved on to define “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. The operator has provided images of the signage at the site.

The charge amount is not prominent on the signage, due to the size and colour of the font. There is other information on the signage in a bold font and I would expect the charge amount to also be prominent.

Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirem
ents of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.