PCN from Euro Car Parks

mas4rr

Unsuccessful
Assessor Name xxxxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at Morrisons, Cannock where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking for longer than the maximum stay period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to identify the driver of the vehicle. The appellant states that the registered keeper of the vehicle made a reasonable request for information, as there was inadequate information on the PCN issued to identify the driver. The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the signage is compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the appellant says that the terms and conditions are not legible at the bottom above the operator’s address, even from the operator’s evidence. The appellant states that the unknown driver did not see the inadequate signage as the keeper has received a series of PCN’s. The appellant states that there is no entrance signage warning motorists that terms and conditions are in place. The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide a complete copy of the relevant landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant to be the keeper of the vehicle. 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 liability as keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, ““MAXIMUM STAY 2 HOURS WE ARE USING CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IMAGES OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES AND CALCULATE THE LENGTH OF STAY BETWEEN ENTRY AND EXIT AT ALL TIMES INCLUDING BANK HOLIDAYS THIS CAR PARK IS CONTROLLED, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £90 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 09:4x and departing at 16:2x on xx December 2018. From this, I am satisfied that the vehicle was at the site for six hours 34 minutes. From the evidence provided I consider that there appears to be a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms and conditions have been breached. I will now look at the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA’s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions. The appellant states that the operator has failed to identify the driver of the vehicle. The appellant states that the registered keeper of the vehicle made a reasonable request for information, as there was inadequate information on the PCN issued to identify the driver. 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. The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the signage is compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the appellant says that the terms and conditions are not legible at the bottom above the operator’s address, even from the operator’s evidence. The appellant states that the unknown driver did not see the inadequate signage as the keeper has received a series of PCN’s. The appellant states that there is no entrance signage warning motorists that terms and conditions are in place. 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”. Additionally, section 18.3 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”. From the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the signage at site meets the BPA Code of Practice and that the terms and conditions of the site are both “conspicuous and legible”. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that the driver had the opportunity to see the signage and agree to the sites terms and conditions before parking. In addition, I note the appellant’s comments regarding the small print on the signage, however, the terms and conditions referred to in the assessment are the main wording on the signage, not small print. Regarding entrance signage plays an important part in establishing that a site is managed, there must be other signs around the site, bringing the specific terms and conditions to the motorists attention. I can see that there are other signs and these signs do make clear, that a £90 charge will be issued for failure to comply with the terms and conditions. The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide a complete copy of the relevant landowner authority. The operator has produced a document which is part of the contract between itself and the landowner 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. The appellant has raised new grounds of appeal in his rebuttal of the operator’s evidence. However, POPLA cannot consider additional points of appeal, as the rebuttal is an opportunity to provide further comments on the initial grounds of appeal based on the evidence pack. Furthermore, some of the additional points raised do not fall under POPLA’s remit. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As such, we are unable to comment on the operator’s process when providing its evidence to POPLA. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check the terms and conditions and either adhere to them or leave the site. By remaining at the site in excess of the maximum time allowed at the site, the driver has not complied with the terms and conditions in place. In conclusion, the operator has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the appellant has not complied with the sites terms and conditions. Therefore, I determine that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Silvervend

I examined everything you typed and I just decided to pay that PCN. There is just too much effort to gather all that and write my own appeal for £50.

But I have sent complains to Morrisons that I am not going to use their stores ever again because of that.

Coupon-mad

No-one in their right mind actually PAYS a Euro Car Parks PCN!

Are you joking? Stop.

Silvervend

My complain to Morrisons was good enough, to get a charge back on my PCN. I didn't have to bring up any laws or point out anything, just plain complain about being a genuine customer and getting fined for it.

Coupon-mad

Told you it was easy and not to pay it! Glad it worked.