Lost popla appeal against EurxCarxParks- what next please?

krissy08

Hello all,
I read the newbies threads and followed all the advice but I have received a decision from Popla stating;
The appellant states that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle however, they are not liable for the alleged parking charge. The appellant explains that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and the some of the signage content is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant highlights that the signs are difficult to read considering the font and size of the text, causing potential danger to motorists. The appellant says that there is insufficient notice of the parking charge sum itself and fails to advise motorists of what the ANPR data will be used for, which is non-compliant of the BPA code of practice. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states that the Notice To Keeper does not meet the PoFA 2012 requirements. The appellant has referred to a previous appeal that was decided and ruled by POPLA on 2nd June 2016, in support of the current appeal. The appellant has provided video and photographic evidence to show the lack of signage and that the signage is not clear and prominent, in support of the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
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. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage, which states: “EURO CAR PARKS…MAXIMUM STAY 3 HOURS…FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £90.00 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…PARKING LIMITED TO 3 hours (NO RETURN WITHIN 2 HOURS…WE ARE USING CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IMAGES OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES AND CALCULATE THE LENGTH OF STAY…” The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 09:53, and exiting at 13:34, totalling a stay of three hours and 41 minutes. The operator has provided evidence of a landowner agreement statement from the landowner, Savills dated 25th April 2017 authorising the operator to manage to car park on its behalf. The operator has provided evidence of a site map, showing 33 signs are situated across the site. The appellant has stated that the signage is not sufficient for the car park, as the signs are not positioned at a reasonable height and font colour and size is not clear enough to be read. The appellant also highlights that the use of ANPR cameras and what they are used for are not displayed on the signage. At this point, I would like to refer the appellant to section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice regarding signage. The BPA code of practice states that operators must provide signage stating specific parking-terms, informing drivers of what the terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. The signs containing the specific parking terms must be positioned throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. In this situation, the signage clearly states that the maximum stay time for a driver is three hours only. Having reviewed the evidence, the appellant remained on the car park for an additional 41 minutes, which was beyond the three-hour maximum stay time and as such, the PCN has been issued. I have reviewed the signage and can see from the images that the signs are positioned at eye-level and fall within the font size recommended by the BPA code of practice, so it is clear that the signs were readable and positioned in a way that could allow the appellant to understand the terms and conditions. The appellant has made comments about the signage not complying with section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. Upon reviewing the signage, I can see that all the signs contain he universally recognised symbol for ANPR cameras. Based on this, I am satisfied it is clear that ANPR cameras are in use on the site. I appreciate the signage does not clearly state what the ANPR camera data will be used for. However, I am satisfied that this has no effect on the driver’s ability to comply with the terms and conditions, as they have exceeded the maximum stay by more than a reasonable period. Furthermore, the site map evidence shows me that there are 33 signs located across the site so, which I would deem to be sufficient considering the car park is of a large size. If the appellant was unable to read the sign where he was based, there were other signs available for him to check and understand the terms before agreeing to park at the site. Alternatively, if the appellant believed they were not in a position to check and understand the terms and conditions of the site, then they had ample opportunity to leave the site and seek alternative parking arrangements. I have considered the appellant’s evidence and whilst I appreciate this information, it does not support that the appellant complied with the parking terms on the date in question. Furthermore, the video footage is only focused within certain parts of the car park and not throughout the car park as a whole, as they have not filmed the end of the parking bay, whereas the operator’s images show that there are more signs situated. .......As such, I do not believe that the appellant’s evidence is a true representation of the site. The appellant has referred to the operator not having landowner authority for the site. Before considering this for grounds for appeal; I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BP1A) 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”. In respect of landowner authority, the definition of the land in question and the operator has provided me with the parking terms contract, which I have reviewed and note that it does convey that the site in question is Savills and that it is signed by Anna Williams, on behalf of the landowner. In this regard, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place and an adequate definition of the site in question has been stated, and in accordance with my role I will base my decision on the principle of assessing if the PCN was issued correctly, against the advertised terms and conditions of the site. .......The appellant has referred to a previous case about a similar issue, which was investigated and successfully in June 2016 by POPLA. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments, POPLA only considers appeals for parking charges issued on a case-by-case basis. As any previous assessment has no bearing on how the PCN was issued on this occasion, I do not consider it relevant to the current assessment and has no effect on my decision. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates that the operator does not have landowner authority to issue PCNs and the signage was not adequate, as their previous POPLA case agreed on. Then appellant also says that the signage does not explain that what the ANPR data will be used for, which conflicts the BPA code of practice, and refers us to their evidence. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as well as referring to various sections of the BPA code of practice and PoFA 2012, I remain satisfied that the signage is sufficient enough to explain the terms and conditions and that the operator was authorised to issue the parking charge to the appellant on the date I question. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they have adhered to the terms and conditions of the car park. In this case, by failing to adhere to the maximum stay period, the appellant has accepted the potential consequence of receiving a PCN. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Any advice for what next please?

Quentin

You need to keep everything in the one thread

You can see how busy this forum is

It will be impossible if everyone simply started a new thread at each development

Copy and paste your post above into your original thread and then use edit to change the text to duplicate thread please ignore

And use edit/go advanced to alter the title to read the same and let this thread die