counter apealing Private Parking Solution (London) - POPLA

Hall_D

Hi all.
I believe that I have browsed and found most of what I needed on this forum but now am a bit stuck.
I have recevide a PCN from Private Parking Solution (London), to which I replied with, this forums suggested general appeal "I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner...."
they rejected that and send me POPLA Code which I've used to appeal to popla.
I have copied and modified one of the appeal leters from this forum as follows:

Dear POPLA, I am the registered keeper of vehicle with registration number LS66KSK and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge as issued on 11 th Oct 2022 by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds. 1) No signage in vicinity – no contract with driver formed I believe that the driver entered the road where there was an absence of clear and visible signage on the entry of Regis Road. Along with the fact that multiple other cars were parked on the same road, the driver was lead to believe that the zone was unrestricted. It is plausible that the driver neither saw any signs nor knew about any terms & conditions which governed the road where the alleged parking violation occurred. Having visited the location, I noted that the sign on entry to the Regis Road is almost visible especially while driving. There was no such signage on the opposite side (which also does not have a “Control Zone Ends” sign, and therefore cannot be seen. Please note that pictures of these signs have been attached. Upon closer inspection the sign, I notice that it does not contain any terms and conditions and hence even if the driver had seen this, a contract would not have been formed: to be relied on as having formed a contract, all terms and conditions must be readable, understood and agreed to by any driver (elderly, disabled, short sighted etc) on entering the area and in any lighting and all weather conditions. Upon detailed inspection of the area, I finally saw that 2 very small signs were actually present on the walls to the left and right just as Regis Close is entered. These are however very confusing with one preventing parking on yellow lines and the other informing on suspended bays. It would also require a driver to walk across grass verges, stand in a flowerbed and use a ladder to read the small text within them. Even if such extreme measures were taken, the font was so small that most people would still struggle to read such text. As well as this, none such signs were available in the vicinity to where the car was parked. Please can I also draw your attention to the example sign which was provided by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd in response to my original appeal. Using the measurements of the sign as provided, I have estimated that the largest print on this sign will be less than 2.5cm, the print within the box outlining the alleged contract will be less than 1.25cm, and the line at the bottom reading “Do not park here unless you agree to the terms & conditions displayed” is less than 0.5cm. To insist that such text is readable from the pavement approximately 10 feet below the sign is ridiculous and unacceptable. As such, I reiterate my point and appeal that no contract with the driver was formed as there was an absence of signage in the vicinity of the alleged parking violation (please also see attached photos). There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed - so no contract exists. Furthermore, if it was self-ticketing I require proof that the ticketer was trained in the BPA CoP & an explanation of why no grace period was allowed. In such conditions the BPA CoP does not allow ticketing. The wording was unreadable and even if they could have been seen and read the terms are misleading, with words which attempt to dress up the charge as a 'contractual' fee. It is not; see point 2. 2) The charge is for breach (not a contractual fee) and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but an unenforceable penalty. Although certain wording on the example of the sign sent to me by the Operator attempts to claim that the sum sought is a contractual term, other wording on the sign contradicts this and shows the true nature is for breach, as the phrase ‘unauthorised parking will result in a Parking Charge Notice……' indicates. In addition, in their rejection of my appeal the Operator states, ‘.…charges that may be imposed should these restrictions be breached’. It is, therefore, clear that the charge is for breaching the specific conditions stated. Parking by other drivers is NOT offered for a fee. It is not allowed. Clearly, permission to park ‘in breach’ is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach. The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty. The £100 charge asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the road or “car park” is apparently for parking permit holders only. The Just park website also states that to reserve and pay for the space for 5 minutes (and on this case the car was parked there for less than 5 minutes) costs £3 (three GBP). In the appeal Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has suffered as a result of the car being parked on the road or “car park” is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park. POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss. 3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd’s lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowners and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner. I do not believe that Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. In addition, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. The driver expects Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code. I, therefore, put Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to strict proof of the contract terms with the site landowner (not an individual lessee or managing agent as they are another third party). A site agreement/witness statement saying they 'can issue Parking Charge Notices' will not suffice; this is not the issue. The whole unredacted contract is required to show what is authorised by way of charges and whether only for breach - and whether Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have the assignment of title or standing needed to pursue the matter in the courts in their own name.

Kind Regards
xxxx, registered keeper 

Then Private Parking Solution (London) has uploaded their side of the story on POPLA as follows:

"Dear Assessor,

The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location.

When entering a private parking environment, the landowner is entitled to set its own parking terms and conditions that they consider necessary to form a contract with a motorist. The terms of the site are agreed between the landowner and the parking operator and then stated on the signage placed throughout the site.
The responsibility is that of the motorist to ensure that the terms and conditions have been understood and agreed to before parking.
The contract formed when parking is between the motorist and the operator through the terms and conditions set out on the signage.
The signage is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in a parking charge notice of £100 being issued. By parking on this land you contractually agree to pay the displayed charge".
The charge was issued because the appellant’s vehicle was parked within a strictly no parking at any time area, which is a direct contravention of the terms and conditions of parking.
The onsite images show that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no parking at any time area, and has been observed not being parked under the terms of the car park next to a visible notice on display, which indicated that parking is not permitted and further stating that there is no waiting at any time in the area. As there is no evidence of any circumstances forcing the appellant to park in a no parking at any time area, the warden has acted in line with the signage in issuing the charge.
The British Parking Association (BPA) sets out standards for signage for its members when managing a car park. The BPA Code of Practice, Section 19.3 states: “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. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand” and “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”.
Prominent signs at the site’s entrance make clear that terms apply and refer users to further signs within the site. Responsibility rested with the appellant, having passed the entrance sign, to seek out additional signage within the site and avail themselves of the relevant terms. According to the evidence, the signage is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. The signage on site clearly conveys all the parking terms and conditions. The signs are at a readable height, stand out from the surroundings of the site, and fall within the font size recommended by the BPA code of practice. It is clear that the signs were readable and positioned in a way that could allow the appellant to understand the terms and conditions. The signage is displayed as black text on a white background making it prominent to all motorists when they park. It is evident that the signage, the appellant parked next to, would have been visible when they arrived on site, and therefore, they entered into a valid contract as they remained in situ within a no parking area. 
Section 13.1 of the BPA Code does allow a 5-minute consideration period for motorists to review terms and leave the site if they don’t wish to be bound however, Section 13.2 explains that this doesn’t apply if a parking event occurs, and 13.4 explains that it doesn’t apply in areas where parking isn’t permitted. The appellant parked next to a sign outlining the terms and conditions for the area. By parking in this no parking area the appellant accepted liability for the charge as stated. A PCN is a parking charge, issued for a breach of contract and based on a contractually agreed sum which is stated on the signage. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.
Ultimately, when driving the driver is responsible for being aware of their surroundings. This includes looking out for signage. The actions of other drivers are of no concern to the appellant as their actions do not impact the appellant’s ability to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms as set out. Each motorist is given the opportunity to consider the terms and conditions before entering into a contract with the parking operator. If they choose to ignore the terms and continue to park, they are accepting liability and are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge to the operator. The signage on the site clearly states that there is no parking or waiting on this site. As the appellant has remained in a no parking site, they have contravened the parking contract and this has resulted in them being liable for a PCN."
PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD
Correspondence Address: PO Box 1115, West Drayton UB8 9XD
Telephone: 01895713136 

It looks like they have also "copied" their response from somewhere.
Is there anything else I need to do, add or reply to their appeal?
Or, whagt do members of this forum suggest I do?
Many thanks

Coupon-mad

You do exactly what post #3 of the NEWBIES thread already tells you to do at POPLA Comments stage.  You scrutinise their photos and other evidence.  Not just the statement.

Hall_D

and below was my unsuccesfull apeal to POPLA. what next?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Xxxx Xxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s appeal will be summarised only. The appellant says as the registered keeper they are not liable for the charge. The appellant says there was no contract formed as signage was not read. They explain when entering there is an absence of clear and visible signage. As other cars were parked the driver thought the area was unrestricted. They explain there were no signs on the opposite side of the road. After closer inspection they have noticed there are 2 small signs on the walls on the left and right hand side however these are confusing as one relates to yellow lines and the other suspended bays. In order to read these, the appellant says a ladder would be needed as they are high and font small. The appellant has requested evidence to show that the warden is trained to BPA standards. They have asked why a grace period was not allowed. The appellant states the charge is disproportionate and not a contractual price. The appellant says the parking operator does not have a valid contract to issue charges. The appellant has quoted an appeal that was made by another POPLA assessor. The appellant has provided evidence of signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has not 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 registered keeper. In order for the registered keeper to be liable for the PCN, I have to consider if the operator has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The PCN was issued to the keeper on 11 October 2022 for the parking event that occurred on 7 October 2022. To comply with PoFA the operator must issue the PCN within a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. PoFA sets out that the notice is presumed delivered two working days from the date it was sent. This means that this notice would have been presumed delivered under PoFA on the 8th day, and so was delivered within the relevant period. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the operator has issued the Notice to Keeper within 14 days, and therefore has complied with PoFA. 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 parking operator has provided images of signage that say: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME…no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice”. The parking operator has provided images of the car parked in a no parking area. The appellant’s appeal will be summarised only. The appellant says as the registered keeper they are not liable for the charge. I appreciate these comments however the PCN does comply with POFA as discussed and therefore liability remains with the appellant, as the registered keeper. The appellant says there was no contract formed as signage was not read. A motorist does not have to have read the signage to enter into a contract and they only need to be afforded the opportunity to read these signs, which the appellant was. They explain when entering there is an absence of clear and visible signage. As other cars were parked the driver thought the area was unrestricted. They explain there were no signs on the opposite side of the road. After closer inspection they have noticed there are 2 small signs on the walls on the left and right hand side however these are confusing as one relates to yellow lines and the other suspended bays. In order to read these, the appellant says a ladder would be needed as they are high and font small. I accept the appellant’s comments however there is a sign directly beside the appellant’s car. the appellant has also not provided evidence that shows there were no other signs within the vicinity therefore I am satisfied there was visible signs. The parking operator has also provided evidence to show there is a prominent entrance sign advising motorists there are restrictions. A motorist must seek these signs out to understand the contract they are entering into. The parking operator has provided a site map and I can see there are ample signs that are close together all the way along the road. In order to park where the appellant did they would have passed multiple signs. As also discussed, there was a sign directly beside the car. The evidence also says in large writing NO PARKING AT ANY TIME and does not refer to yellow lines or suspended parking. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 19.3: 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. I am satisfied the signs more than comply with the BPA code of practice. The appellant has requested evidence to show that the warden is trained to BPA standards. If the appellant has concerns that the warden was not trained sufficiently then they will need to raise with the parking operator directly. They have asked why a grace period was not allowed. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. I appreciate these comments however the area the appellant parked is not a pay to park area and there is no parking allowed therefore a grace period does not apply. The appellant states the charge is disproportionate and not a contractual price. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case. The charge amount is £100 and this is within the allowed charge amount. As such, I conclude the charge is appropriate. The appellant says the parking operator does not have a valid contract to issue charges. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 7.1 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. The parking operator has provided evidence that shows they do have a a contract with the landowner that was valid on the date of parking therefore I am satisfied they were allowed to issue this charge. The appellant has quoted an appeal that was made by another POPLA assessor. Each appeal is assessed on an individual basis and the outcome of any other appeal has no bearing on the outcome of the appeal. The appellant has provided evidence of signage. I accept these signs however I am not satisfied this evidence rebuts the parking operator’s evidence. I am satisfied there is amply signs on this road and it would have been impossible for the appellant not to have passed these. 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. It is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant parked in a no parking area, 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.

KeithP

Hall_D said:

and below was my unsuccesfull apeal to POPLA. what next?

From the third post of the NEWBIES thread, read from this point onwards...

What will happen if I lose at POPLA or IAS?

Grizebeck

You already know what to do

fisherjim

Oh dear that appeal was deemed to fail for so many reasons, you also missed the point that as there was in fact no offer to park (no parking at any time) you could not therefore enter into a contract

Hall_D

fisherjim said:

Oh dear that appeal was deemed to fail for so many reasons, you also missed the point that as there was in fact no offer to park (no parking at any time) you could not therefore enter into a contract

Thank you all for posts and suggestions on this forum (not just on my question) but if I knew better would probably not address this forum at all. It can be easily deducted that I am an amateur in this department but also do not pretend to be otherwise. Just did as best I could, based on info gathered ( or in my case missed to gather) from this forum. I was not convinced that I did a good job and that is why I asked for help in here. While I fully appreciate that advise here is given on voluntary basis, someone like myself struggles badly with it and so, I just copied bits and pieces from different posts and stitched together and appeal.

patient_dream

Hall_D said:

fisherjim said:

Oh dear that appeal was deemed to fail for so many reasons, you also missed the point that as there was in fact no offer to park (no parking at any time) you could not therefore enter into a contract

Thank you all for posts and suggestions on this forum (not just on my question) but if I knew better would probably not address this forum at all. It can be easily deducted that I am an amateur in this department but also do not pretend to be otherwise. Just did as best I could, based on info gathered ( or in my case missed to gather) from this forum. I was not convinced that I did a good job and that is why I asked for help in here. While I fully appreciate that advise here is given on voluntary basis, someone like myself struggles badly with it and so, I just copied bits and pieces from different posts and stitched together and appeal.

Let you into a little secret ..... all of us were once amateurs on this forum and we all listened until this forum evolved into the biggest enemy of the scam parking industry. We do know this scam is a minefield to understand but we know what to do.

Your query is about POPLA ?   You are not alone, over time we have watched POPLA fall into the sewers and that's where they will stay until the new government independent appeals service, professionals, take over hopefully next year

Have a look at Trustpilot regarding POPLA
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/popla.co.uk

94% BAD ......  and the leader of the pack ... no surprise here is the BPA ..... WHOOPS 97% bad ... they also belong in the Sewers
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.britishparking.co.uk

Judges know of this scam so because the fools at POPLA DON'T UNDERSTAND what fisherjim said ... IE: (no parking at any time) which is not a contract, more so trespass and that would be up to the landowner to persue ... which they will not, the parking company can whistle down the wind, it's not their land

The moral is  to follow the wisdom of this forum

Coupon-mad

Just ignore them and debt crawler letters.

No paying a PPC and certainly not a waste of space debt collector firm.

Hall_D

It seems that someone driving my car is on a mission to collect as many of these as possible  
Had another PCN by and I followed this forums advice and reached to stage to where POPLA has refused my claim again. Just if it is of any interest to others, I'm posting it here. Should've I perhaps started a new thread as it is different issuer of PCN (Capital Car Park Control) ? Below is POPLA response to my appeal:
----------------------------------------------------------
The relevant points of the appellant’s grounds of appeal will be summarised only. The appellant says no contract was formed as there was no clear signage within the vicinity. They explain there was no visible signs on entry to the car park and within the car park signs were obscured. Due to this, the driver believed the area was unrestricted. After visiting the car park the appellant says there are no signs where the car had parked. They say on further inspection the signs do not actually have any terms on them. The appellant says other signs that they did see were small and would not have been visible at night, when the contravention occurred. The appellant has requested proof that the warden is trained to BPA standards. The appellant says the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and the appellant would like a breakdown of cost. The appellant has stated that the parking operator does not have a valid contract with the landowner. They explain there is no evidence that demonstrates how long the car was parked. The appellant has provided evidence of signs.
The appellant has not 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 registered keeper. In order for the registered keeper to be liable for the PCN, I have to consider if the operator has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The PCN was issued to the keeper on (date removed by me H.D) for the parking event that occurred on (date removed by me H.D). To comply with PoFA the operator must issue the PCN within a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. PoFA sets out that the notice is presumed delivered two working days from the date it was sent. This means that this notice would have been presumed delivered under PoFA on the 8th day, and so was delivered within the relevant period. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the operator has issued the Notice to Keeper within 14 days, and therefore has complied with PoFA. 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 parking operator has provided images of signs in the car park that state: “NO PARKING, WAITING OR STOPPING…£100 Parking Charge Notice” The parking operator has provided images that show the vehicle parked from (time removed by me H.D) to (time removed by me H.D), a total duration of 15 minutes. The appellant says no contract was formed as there was no clear signage within the vicinity. A motorist does not need to have read signs to accept the terms and enter into a contract. By parking and remaining for a period of time a motorist has accepted the terms and agreed a contract with the parking operator. They explain there was no visible signs on entry to the car park and within the car park signs were obscured. Due to this, the driver believed the area was unrestricted. After visiting the car park the appellant says there are no signs where the car had parked. They say on further inspection the signs do not actually have any terms on them. The appellant says other signs that they did see were small and would not have been visible at night, when the contravention occurred. I appreciate the appellant’s comments however the parking operator’s evidence of the contravention shows that there is sufficient lighting directly where the car was parked. The parking operator’s images and site map shows this is a very small area and there are entrance signs when entering to the left and signs along the walls. When entering, parking and turning round the appellant would have passed multiple signs. Looking at the appellant’s evidence they have took an image at a distance to show the entrance to the area at night, I can visibly see the sign on the wall to the left and I am satisfied this is prominent including at night. The remaining images are taken close up and do not demonstrate what area this is showing. Therefore, this does not rebut the parking operator’s evidence. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 19.3: 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. Ultimately, looking at both sets of evidence I am satisfied there are sufficient signs and they are prominent at night. I am satisfied the signs do comply with the BPA code of practice. The appellant has requested proof that the warden is trained to BPA standards. Any concerns the appellant has about this must be raised with the parking operator and the British Parking Association. This is not within POPLA’s remit as we are an appeals service only. The appellant says the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and the appellant would like a breakdown of cost. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is not a pre-estimate of loss, 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. The appellant has stated that the parking operator does not have a valid contract with the landowner. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 7.1 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. The parking operator has provided evidence that shows they do have a valid contract that allows them to issue charges. They explain there is no evidence that demonstrates how long the car was parked. The parking operator has provided images of the car and it does show them parked for 15 minutes. It is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant parked in a no parking/waiting area, 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.

Grizebeck

No new thread needed follow the newbies