Popla appeal decision received

jamesmc80

Hi there. Its been a while since my original thread so I am writing a new one to get your good fellows opinion on what I should do now. 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gemma 

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not compiled with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding consideration and grace periods. The appellant states there is inadequate signage. He says that there is no entrance signage and the signage is not clear or legible from all parking spaces. He explains that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the Parking Charge. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has indicated in his appeal to the parking operator that he was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering his liability as driver of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Failure to comply with the following terms & conditions may result in a parking charge…A valid permit must be displayed for inspection at all times…£100 Parking Charge.” The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked without a valid permit. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 13:34 and exiting at 13:38. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states the operator has not compiled with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding consideration and grace periods. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.” The appellant in his appeal to the parking operator stated he entered the site to take an urgent telephone call. As such, I do not consider they was on site deciding if they wish to stay or go. Therefore, i am satisfied the appellant entered into a parking contract with the operator by remaining on site. The appellant states there is inadequate signage. He says that there is no entrance signage and the signage is not clear or legible from all parking spaces. He explains that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the Parking Charge. I note the appellant’s comments however; the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Within Section 19.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example: • when there is no clearly defined car park entrance • when the car park is very small • at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations • at parking areas where general parking is not permitted In this case I can see that the operator has installed an entrance sign which is visible throughout the site. Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location, and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “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 considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The appellant states in response to the operator’s case file that the image circled is not at the entrance. I note the appellant’s comments and I have reviewed the evidence of the signage on the site provided by the operator and I am satisfied there is sufficient signage throughout the site to notify the appellant terms applied. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “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. The operator has provided a copy of its contract agreement and I am satisfied the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. On this occasion, the appellant parked without a valid permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.

Is it time to bite the bullet and cough up or do I let the scary letters start coming through the door

Any help would good 

Fruitcake

Please repost it again with paragraph breaks in the PoPLA decisions sticky thread so we can actually read it. Knowing the identity of the parking scammers will help the regulars as well.

Do you have a thread regarding this issue? If so posting it there would be better than a stand alone thread with no background.

PoPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist so there is no requirement for you to pay unless a judge says so at a later date.

KeithP

Please copy your post above as a reply on to your existing thread. No-one is going to leap around the internet looking for history.
When doing that, please insert some paragraph breaks in that slab of text you have thrown at us. 

Then please edit your thread tile, and opening post to read something like...

Duplicate thread - please ignore