PCN Help required

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.

Penguin_

Le_Kirk wrote: »

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.

I know that but what I don't know is what is likely to happen next.

nosferatu1001

What threads have you read, using the obvious search terms of operator name etc?
What was the reason given? Assessor name?

Penguin_

The appellant has declined to name the driver of the vehicle so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. PoFA 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. 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. When entering onto a private 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. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state; “Maximum stay 3 hours. Except for match day. No return for 4 hours at any time…Maximum stay 90 minutes on match days for 1 hour prior to kick-off and for the duration of the match…If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £90”.



The site is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and the operator has provided photographic evidence to show the vehicle entering the site on 12 September 2019 at 17:38 and leaving the site at 21:32, totalling a stay of three hours and 54 minutes. The PCN was issued by the operator on 12 September 2019, due to the vehicle being parked at the site for longer than the maximum stay permitted. Based on the terms and conditions and available evidence, I consider the appellant has accepted a contract and there is sufficient evidence the appellant didn’t keep to the contract. I am now going to consider the appellant’s appeal to determine if it makes a material difference. The appellant states that the signage at the car park was inadequate. Within the appellant’s response to the operator’s evidence, he states that there was nothing to alert drivers to any change to the advertised hours at the entrance. The appellant states that whilst a picture has been sent of a sign being placed at the entrance previously, there is no evidence to show the sign was in place on the day of the parking event. Section 18.2 of the British Parking Association (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”. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice 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”. Having viewed the operator’s photographic evidence of the signage, I am satisfied the signage located throughout the car park informs motorists of the terms and conditions and the risk of receiving a penalty if not adhered to. I am also satisfied that the signage meets the requirements of section 18.2 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states that the vehicle was parked near the barrier and did not drive round, so if there was any alert about an event day, it was not possible to see from where the car was parked. The appellant states that the operator is put to strict proof to show where the car was in relation to the signs. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show the PCN has been issued correctly. The operator has provided evidence of the appellants vehicle entering the site and remaining there for three hours and 54 minutes before exiting. As such, it is reasonable to assume the vehicle was parked on site. The appellant has not provided any evidence to confirm the vehicle was not parked on the site. As such, I am satisfied the vehicle was parked on site on the day in question. As previously stated, I am satisfied that the signage located throughout the car park informs motorists of the terms and conditions and the risk of receiving a penalty if not adhered to.



By entering the car park and not adhering to the conditions, the appellant has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. The appellant has provided a PDF document and states that it shows that there is an argument against the reduced parking restrictions as well as the onus being on the operator to show who was driving. In this instance, the vehicle remained at the site for three hours and 54 minutes. The signage clearly informs motorists that the maximum stay is three hours except for match days when the maximum stay is 90 minutes. As the appellant’s vehicle remained in the car park for longer than both of these restrictions, this ground of appeal is not relevant. In relation to the onus being on the operator to show who was driving, PoFA 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified.



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. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on private land. By remaining in the car park for longer than the maximum stay permitted, the motorist has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the parking contract. I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Umkomaas

Throw some paragraphing into that wall of text and you might encourage someone to read the detail.

Penguin_

Umkomaas wrote: »

Throw some paragraphing into that wall of text and you might encourage someone to read the detail.

Sorry, was in the process of doing that but got sidetracked in work.

Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk wrote: »

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.

Penguin_ wrote: »

I know that but what I don't know is what is likely to happen next.

Next is all contained within the NEWBIE sticky. Have you read it? It is likely that the PPC will pursue you via threatening debt collector letters (which you can safely ignore) and then by LoC/LBC/LBC which you don't ignore and eventually you will/might receive court claim papers from Northampton CCBC.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for POPLA lost and do what everyone else does, and we will see you in 2020 to continue this thread to defend a court claim and win.

Penguin_

Thank you both, the idea of even thinking about court petrifies me!!

Umkomaas

Penguin_ wrote: »

Thank you both, the idea of even thinking about court petrifies me!!

Watch this and re-evaluate your thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Credit KeithP for first linking this video