PCN total parking solutions

Gregous · 20 May 2019 at 7:47PM

Thanks for the help everyone but today I have received the answer from POPLA (below), please what do I do now?

POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly. To do so we consider the benefit and utility gained from the use of the site and whether the motorist entered into a contract with the operator. The operator must show what terms and conditions applied to the parking period and how the motorist was made aware of the terms. Once this has been established it passes to the appellant to show any circumstance or inaccuracy which would prove the charge was issued incorrectly. In this case the operator has issued a PCN of £70 for leaving the site while the vehicle remained. The appellant confirms they were the motorist as such I am assessing the charge under driver liability. The appellant has advised POPLA that they met their ex-partner at the site with their two children in order to shop at the Halfords serviced by the car park. They have advised that in order to buy sweets for their children they ‘legally designated’ their ex-partner as the driver of the vehicle so that they could leave the site to obtain money. They state that as they had made another person the driver of the vehicle the PCN was issued incorrectly and they are upset that the warden took images of the vehicle and not of their ex-partner stood at the store entrance with their children and keys. To support the appeal, they have given a screenshot of the evidence given by the operator in their original appeal, a photograph of the signage and a receipt from a store at the site. The terms and conditions of the site are: “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked on this car park… By failing to comply with the above terms you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £70…” After reviewing the operators evidence the appellant has submitted the following comments for consideration; “As stated in my previous statement, I gave the keys to the car to my ex misses and left her in charge of the vehicle who was also with our two children, she never left the premises during the time that I went to the bank. I had agreed with her that she was to become the designated driver of the vehicle who has a full UK driving licence and is fully insured to drive the vehicle. As stated in my previous statement, the sign does not state that I cannot designate another person to drive the car in my absence if they have the keys, are legal to drive it and stay on the premises, in this case she did have the keys, was legal to drive it and stayed on the premises.” As the individual who drove the vehicle onto the site the appellant entered into a contract with the operator and agreed to the terms and conditions of parking. The terms do not say the ‘driver’ only must remain at the site, but are clear that if the individual leaves the premises while the vehicle they arrived in remains they are in breach of the terms of the parking contract. As such, regardless of whether they ‘designated’ another party to drive the vehicle, they entered into the contract and were responsible for complying with the terms and conditions. By leaving the site they have breached the terms displayed, as such, I find that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal.