Initial Parking PCN - York Street Manchester

msa123

Received a response today - unsuccessful. What are the likely next steps and if it went to court what costs can i expect?

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Claire Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for unpaid tariff time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • They have said that no period of grace was given to the driver when they entered the site or as they left. • They have said that the operator has provided images of the vehicle entering and leaving the site but do not establish the time the parking ticket was purchased or expired. • They have mentioned the new BPA Code of Practice and that the BPA told its members earlier this year that they should implement the new government changes as a matter of urgency and not wait for it to become law. • They have said that the signage on site is inadequate, does not inform motorists that the timing starts from point of entry, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • They have said there is no evidence that the parking operator has landowner authority to issue charges and that the charge is all out of proportion. The appellant has provided an image of a parking ticket. This has been considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver and in issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and I can see that PCN was issued within the relevant period. Therefore, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The operator has provided a site plan and photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, the terms and conditions of this car park are: “PARKING REGULATIONS APPLY…This is a pay and display car park…Please purchase a parking ticket for the duration of your stay from the payment machine…PARKING TARIFFS APPLY…Up to 2 hours £1.80…Up to 3 hours £2.50”. The signage also states a Parking Charge of £100 will be issued for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the site. The operator has provided details from its system to show that the appellants vehicle registration was listed as having paid for 2 hours of parking on site at the time in question. This site is monitored by automatic number plate recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 15:24 and departing at 17:39 on 9 October 2022. The total time in the car park was 2 hours and 15 minutes. 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 British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. I acknowledge that the appellant has mentioned a new Code of Practice. This assessment will be considering the current one. Section 19 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is signage at the entrance and throughout the site and I am satisfied that these comply with the BPA Code of Practice. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. The parking operator is not obliged to state on the signs that the time starts when you enter the site. The signage does display the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera logo indicating this system is in use, and the signage states that payment must be made for the full duration of stay. For the period of time the driver was on site, from point of entry to point of exit, they were using the facilities provided by the parking operator and therefore the terms and conditions applied to them. The payment machine or payment app is not able to determine the time the motorist entered the site. It will start the parking session from the time payment is made. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure a payment has been made that covers their total duration on site by referring to the signage. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of 5 minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. Section 13.6 of the Code goes on to state that a consideration period is not a period of free parking. I am satisfied that the driver would have had the opportunity to leave the site within this time. The driver remaining on site accepted the contract. Section 13.3 of the Code of Practice requires parking operators to allow the driver 10 minutes to leave if parking is permitted for a limited amount of time or on paid car parks. I appreciate that the driver may have left the site within 10 minutes of the end of their paid for parking session, however, as they had not paid enough for their stay, a grace period did not apply in this instance. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. I am satisfied that from the signage evidence provided by the operator, that the charge is adequately brought to the attention of motorists and therefore complies with this. Section 7.1 of the Code outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator had sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. If in saying the charge is all out of proportion, the appellant is saying they feel the charge does not reflect any loss, I accept this, but this has no bearing on my decision. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to reflect any actual loss incurred by a parking operator or landowner. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to seek out the terms of parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. This includes ensuring a valid payment has been made for their stay. The driver was not authorised to park on site for the extra 15 minutes and subsequently accepted the consequence of receiving a potential PCN. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. As the driver has not been identified, the operator has successfully transferred the liability of the charge to the registered keeper. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Court costs added to a small claim are £85.  Nothing to worry about.  Now read the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread to be ready to ignore the debt demands and to avoid telling us about them (please...)!

msa123

Still cheaper than paying the PCN then. Thanks, I have read that post and will ignore as advised. Only come back here if court letters are received, right?

 Are initial parking known to go to court? I have searched the forum but not been able to find anything meaningful.