Civil enforcement POPLA appeal (Waverley court EN2)

muslimahi

Doh! I see how my wording was so wrong there! Hope POPLA somehow read it as I meant it in my head!!

Coupon-mad

And REALLY IMPORTANT PLEASE: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78411172/#Comment_78411172

Please, please come back every week to check and make sure your voice - AND YOUR FRIENDS’ AND RELATIVES’ VOICES TOO -  is/are not missed from this final opportunity to take part in the Government Consultation, coming very soon!

muslimahi

POPLA was unsuccessful. He totally ignored most points and went with the 1st point but missing the word “compliant” completely 🤷🏻‍♀️

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Steven Laidlaw

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to this site is for authorised vehicles only. The PCN has been issued to the appellant due to parking or remaining at the car park in the circumstances above, the terms and conditions as set out in the signage were breached.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that a notice to keeper was never served and therefore no keeper liability can apply. The appellant states that the person who it is pursuing is the driver who is liable for the charge. The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority therefore the PCN does not comply with the British Parking Association BPA code of practice. The appellant states that signage placed in the car park is of a forbidding nature, so no contractual relationship has been entered.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. 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: “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 18:38, and exiting at 19:07, totalling a stay of 29 minutes. The operator has provided evidence showing a list of vehicle registrations which successfully obtained a parking permit between 02 May 2021 and 15 June 2021. Showing that a working permit system was in place on the date which the PCN was issued. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied there is a valid contract and it has been breached. However, before concluding, I need to consider whether the appellant’s grounds of appeal challenge the validity of the operator’s claim. The appellant’s case is that a notice to keeper was never served and therefore no keeper liability can apply. The appellant states that the person who it is pursuing is the driver who is liable for the charge. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator I can see that a notice to keeper was clearly served in the name of the appellant dated 12 May 2021. This notice clearly states the land which the vehicle was parked on, the time and date of the alleged breach of the terms and conditions and the name and current address of the keeper of the vehicle who is liable for the charge. The notice to keeper clearly states, “The notice has been issued under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012” (POFA). The notice also states “If after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after on which this Notice is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full, and we still do not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you so much of that amount as remains unpaid. This warning is given under paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to the applicable conditions in that Schedule.” As such I am satisfied that the notice to keeper has been issued correctly and complies with all aspects of POFA. The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority therefore the PCN does not comply with the British Parking Association BPA code of practice. Section 7 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. 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.” Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied that as of 6 March 2018 a contract was held for the operator to issue a PCN for this land, as such the operator and landlord have complied with section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice. The appellant states that signage placed in the car park is of a forbidding nature, so no contractual relationship has been entered. Section 19.3 of the BPA code of practice states “3 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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied that the signage complies with section 19.3 of the BPA code of practice. When a motorist arrives at a site a consideration period of five minutes is allowed where the appellant can seek out the signage and read the terms and conditions. If the motorist chooses not to leave the site within this five minutes it is assumed that the motorist has read and accepted the terms and conditions and as such becomes liable for a PCN if any of the terms are breached as set out in the signage. 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 did not hold a valid permit, 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.