Walsall McDonald's Wisemore Ocean Parking

Stefano123

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist failed to pay for the duration of their stay. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events and raised a number of grounds of appeal. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • the drive thru was very busy and it took the motorist 15 minutes to get their food and park up. • the motorist only spent 15 minutes parked after getting their food. • the motorist was not advised that free parking time had been reduced from one hour to 20 minutes. • the motorist did not enter into a parking contract due to unclear terms and conditions. • it is not clear that parking time starts upon entry to the site, rather than when motorists actually park up. • the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was not issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • the motorist was unable to pay by RingGo and the helpline was unresponsive. • the operator does not have any proprietary interest in the land and does not have authority to issue PCNs. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided photographs of the site, the PCN, and a section taken from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The above evidence has been considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my report will focus solely on signage as this supersedes other aspects of the appeal. Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage at the site and stated that the terms and conditions of parking are unclear. The British Parking Association has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. Within its evidence file, the operator has provided images of signs which advise that McDonald’s customers must pay to park for longer than 20 minutes, and also signs which advise that they must register for up to 60 minutes free parking. As a result, I am of the view that the terms and conditions are conflicting, and therefore do not clearly set out the terms of parking. As such, I have been unable to conclude that the PCN was correctly issued. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is allowed.

Coupon-mad

Great stuff!

Good to know that POPLA think Walsall McDonalds has 'conflicting' signage. That will help others.

Please make sure you join us in doing a robust response to the DLUHC's final Public Consultation of course.

Your voice is important.

All covered in the top thread by MSE_JC in a reply I put there.

Obviously to make sure you get alerted when the Consultation opens, you need to bookmark that thread after reading & understanding it, AND enable email alerts on your profile for new posts on bookmarked threads.

Snakes_Belly

Well done Stefano. You are getting good at this.

With regard to the Backcester Lane and Gresley Row car parks it seems as if it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. Best to avoid them.

vortmp

I've been caught out by this, but because the Travelodge website was a bit confusing and it looked like it was free overnight.
However, the sign on the entrance is "Pay & Display."  So by entering I believe I have entered a contract to purchase a ticket and display it on my windscreen.  The car park people have failed to honour their side of the contract as they have not provided any machines from which to buy a ticket.  Hence the contract is not valid.  That's my thoughts.  Feel free to poke holes in the argument.

Le_Kirk

You should start your own thread as it can get confusing if we try to answer different posters on one thread.

fisherjim

And as usual the PPC states that the terms of parking are clearly stated on the signs in the car park.

When are the BPA going to leave the warmth of their cosy offices and do some real auditing of their members awful non compliant signage.

Le_Kirk

fisherjim said:

And as usual the PPC states that the terms of parking are clearly stated on the signs in the car park.

When are the BPA going to leave the warmth of their cosy offices and do some real auditing of their members awful non compliant signage.

How about ........ never!

Tongaat101

Hi , thank you for all the posts on this forum. I’ve just got hit with a £60 fine for dining in at MacDonalda Walsall wisemore , spent 41 mins parking and dining in. Such poor signage and no information from staff at MacDonalds about their parking policy. 

KeithP

Tongaat101 said:

Hi , thank you for all the posts on this forum. I’ve just got hit with a £60 fine for dining in at MacDonalda Walsall wisemore , spent 41 mins parking and dining in. Such poor signage and no information from staff at MacDonalds about their parking policy. 

Welcome @Tongaat101.

Is the conflicting signage still in place?

Tongaat101

I only visited the MacDonalds in October, a didn’t notice any signage at first and went on to dine in. A friend of mine also visited the wisemore sight a few weeks later and did not notice any proper signage. Fortunately as soon as I found out he had been to that macdonalds I contacted him the same day to warn him and he managed to pay for it, albeit a very convoluted route to doing so.