Disputing evidence submitted to POPLA by LPS Ltd.

KeithP

benbecula wrote: »

Is it OK to copy their summary on here?

Yes, please do, but make it easier to read by adding some 'white space', breaking up PoPLA's slab of text into paragraphs.

benbecula

The appellant has identified himself as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event, as such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. When entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “All vehicles MUST enter their vehicle registration number at the pay stations. Residents -please pay for your parking on arrival… Pay stations are located in the main entrance of the Premier Inn… Non- residents – please pay for your parking on departure. First 30 minutes FREE. Up to 2 hours £2.00… Charges apply 24 hours a day. Parking Charge Notices Apply For… Failure to pay the parking charge”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 19:48, and exiting at 21:09, totalling a stay of 1 hour 20 minutes. The operator has provided a system generated report to show there is no payment for the appellant’s full and correct registration number. As the operator was unable to locate a valid payment against the appellant’s vehicle, the PCN has been issued.

The appellant states that the signage was inadequate as it told them they had to pay, but not where to pay. The appellant says they intended to pay and looked for a machine and could not find one, so they asked at reception. The appellant says they told them to pay at the machine but again they could not find one, so they thought it must be at the barrier. The appellant says they drove to the barrier, which went up and as they could find no way to pay they thought maybe they were still within the free period so they contacted them when they got back just in case and to see if they needed to pay but they did not receive a reply until they received the Parking Charge Notice to pay on 7 August. As evidence to support their appeal they have provided a copy of an email to the operator. After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant has commented on the evidence pack to support their original appeal.

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to ensure it provides sufficient evidence to show it has issued the PCN correctly. In this case one of the appellant’s grounds of appeal is that there is inadequate signage and in their comments on the operator’s evidence they have referred to Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which states “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions”.

While I acknowledge that the operator has provided numerous images of the signage the resolution of the images is poor in relation to the print with the coloured background, so I am unable to read whether the amount of the Parking Charge is specified on the signage. To rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal I would have expected the operator to provide a signage layout plan and clear images of the signage to establish whether it complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Having viewed the images that have been provided I am not satisfied if the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review and comply with the terms and conditions. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. While I acknowledge the appellant has submitted further grounds of appeal in support of their case, as I have allowed this appeal for other reasons, I do not consider it necessary to consider them further.

Redx

well done , add LPS to it and then copy and paste it into the popla decisions thread at the top of this forum

benbecula

OK, I'll do that, thanks.