minster baywatch parking ticket

sophielong

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameRebecca Fryer
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle not being authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that operator have not complied with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Section 21.4. The appellant states the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant states there is no evidence of Landowner Authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. 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 photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PAY & DISPLAY…All users staying on this site for more than 4 hours must purchase and clearly display a valid pay & display ticket…If your vehicle remains on site and fails to comply with any of the above terms and conditions then you agree to pay the parking charge of £100. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 20:58, and exiting at 01:40, totalling a stay of 4 hours and 42 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that there are several signs located upon entry and throughout the car park. It is clear from the signage that the site offers 4 hours free parking and tariffs are applicable after 4 hours. The operator has provided evidence to show the appellant failed to purchase a valid parking ticket after the free 4 hours parking session. The appellant explains that the operator have not complied with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Section 21.4. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the relevant authority directly. The appellant states the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The operator has provided photographs of the signage on site and I can see there are several signs located throughout the car park and at the car park entrance. I have reviewed the signs located around the car park, which clearly state that the site operates a 4 hour free stay and tariffs are applicable after 4 hours. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.3 states “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 reviewed the photographs of the signage, I am satisfied the signs are complaint with BPA Code of practice section 18.3. The appellant has mentioned in his comments that the entrance sign could not be read without stopping the vehicle. A motorist is not expected to stop and read the entrance sign, this is only there to warn motorists that there are terms and conditions I place on the site. It is then the motorist’s responsibility to seek out and read the signage once they have entered the car park. There is no requirement for the signage to be readable from all parking spaces, as a motorist is expected to leave the vehicle to read the signage. The amount f the PCN is also stated on the signage in line with the BPA code of practice. Whilst I note this my not be in bold text, it is still clear and readable due to the size of the signage. Based on the evidence provided I m satisfied the appellant was provided the opportunity to read the signage on the day in question. The appellant states there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. He says they are in breach of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a witness statement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Section 22.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase a valid parking ticket after the free parking session expired, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Now do this, again if you tried before:

sophielong wrote: »

I think I will also write to the pub head office and the cinema and kick up a stink

And unusually, I would suggest writing to send MB a cheque for the tariff for that extra 42 minutes. A pound or whatever the sign said, plus £20 for admin, and state on your covering letter that you accept no liability but wish to resolve the dispute and by cashing your cheque, the sum is accepted as ''full and final'' settlement. Keep a copy.

The point is, they will refuse & return your cheque, but that weakens their case in court later and will look very reasonable in front of a Judge, in a case where a free parking period was followed by a quantifiable tariff or fee, and you made an attempt to pay it.