Retail PCN for very brief stops

Northernlad101

My appeals were basically the same, making the point that both PCNs were for stopping for periods far shorter than the minimum 10 mins given in the Code of Conduct of PCS's professional association. However the judgements don't seem to take this in to account at all. As far as I can see they seem to have used different criteria, as one is decided in my favour as I did not identify the driver of the car, while in the other case that is not significant. Here is the decision which went against me as keeper of the car:

"Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that their car pulled into the car park in order to drop off a pupil who wanted to use the shops. They say that the pupil was unable to park in a bay, so the car was parked at the side of the road. They advise that the code of practice allows time to read the terms and conditions. They say that the vehicle was not parked in a bay and remained there for 3 minutes, so it is within the grace period. They say that the driver did not leave the vehicle and they did not see any signs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the driver is unknown, 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. The appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The sign states: “No stopping” and “Breach of any term or condition will result in the driver being liable for a parking charge of £100”. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN as well as images of the vehicle. The appellant states that their car pulled into the car park in order to drop off a pupil who wanted to use the shops. They say that the pupil was unable to park in a bay, so the car was parked at the side of the road. While I appreciate that the appellant states that they were dropping someone off, this does not exempt them from the terms and conditions. They advise that the code of practice allows time to read the terms and conditions. They say that the vehicle was not parked in a bay and remained there for 3 minutes, so it is within the grace period. Although there is a grace period to allow motorists to view the terms and conditions, this is not a free period to allow motorists to use the car park. I can see from the site map that the operator has provided locations of the signs as well as copies of the terms. It is the responsibility of the motorist to make sure they are aware of the terms and conditions before deciding to remain. As they have remained and utilised the car park, they have accepted the terms. As the motorist has utilised the car park and has not adhered to the terms and conditions, the grace period does not apply. They say that the driver did not leave the vehicle and they did not see any signs. While I appreciate that the appellant may have not seen the signs, the operator has provided a map to show that there are signs in the car park with terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the operator has provided a reasonable opportunity for the motorist to read the signs before deciding to remain. The site map shows that there was a terms and conditions sign indicating no parking near to where the motorist parked. After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the appellant has parked in the car park and has stopped in the car park in an area that states no parking. As they have stopped in a no stopping area, the PCN has been issued. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal."

The successful appeal judgement follows:
:Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that on 20 May 2019 for the second time in a couple of days his vehicle pulled into the car park, to drop off a pupil who wanted to use the shops there. The appellant states that the pupil was unable to park in a bay as he had not learnt parking at that point, so the vehicle was parked carefully at the side of the road to allow traffic to safely pass. The appellant states that the Code of Conduct of the British Parking Association (BPA), of which the operator is a member states that members must allow motorists a chance to read the signage before they enter into a contract with the operator. The appellant adds that this grace period must be a minimum of ten minutes, but this does not apply if the motorist parks in a bay for specific users. The appellant states that images provided by the operator show his vehicle was present for 20 seconds, which is well within the grace period. The appellant states that the vehicle was not parked in a designated space. The appellant adds that he concedes that the vehicle was parked in an access route through the car park but was not blocking traffic. The appellant states that the driver did not get out of the vehicle at any point and did not have the opportunity to review the signage. the appellant says that even if the driver had seen the signage there was no mention of a grace period, The appellant states that he was unaware that there was a charging system in place at the car park until he received the PCN. The appellant states that in future pupils who cannot park will not be allowed to drive in or to that particular car park.

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. 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. When assessing an appeal the burden of proof lies with the operator and it is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence in rebuttal of the appellant’s statement. Upon review of the notice sent to the keeper, I can see that the operator has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using the Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and so in its mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As the operator is not seeking to pursue the keeper under PoFA, only the driver can be held liable for the charge. However, 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 and in addition other grounds raised do not require any further consideration In conclusion, the burden of proof lies with the operator and I determine on this occasion the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the PCN was issued correctly."

Northernlad101

So following my unsuccessful appeal to POPLA, I still have one outstanding PCN against me. I've received a debt recovery letter, and no, I'm not panicking. My question is should I be doing anything now?