POPLA Decision Unsuccessful - Two PCN's, same incident. Advice/help please

hsadat

Hi everyone,

I received two PCNs October 2024, one week apart, for parking at Victoria Retail Park in Ruislip while attending PureGym. I had been using the gym for months without any issues before they introduced a terminal to register car registrations for gym users. Unfortunately, I wasn’t aware of this change at the time.

After doing extensive research, I appealed both fines to POPLA, but my appeals were unsuccessful. The rejection letters were identical and issued by the same assessor, meaning I now face a total fine of £200.

A staff member at the gym suggested that I contact the parking company (PPC) and provide them with entry logs from the gym to prove I was a legitimate user. However, I’m concerned that it might be too late for this approach.

What would you recommend as my next steps? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Below is copy of the outcome. 

Thanks in advance!

Decision - Unsuccessful

Assessor Name - Rebecca Appleton

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle was present on site during the restricted no parking period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. •They are the keeper of the vehicle and as the keeper they are not liable for the alleged parking charge. •The notice fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. •The appellant raises Parking Eye vs Beavis and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. •The appellant raises Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. •No landowner authority had been provided. •The signs in the car park are not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces. •There is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge and fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and states the operator has altered its evidence in relation to adding the hours ’21:30 -07:30’ The appellant has provided 1.Links to information in relation to text size. 2.Photos of the car park. 3.Appeal letter. 4.Link to information relating to Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised more than one appeal with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 8653204154 which was issued to PCN number 9297724281418. 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. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. 

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. Both the operator and the appellant have provided photos of the signage on site. The signs states there is a maximum stay of 3 hours however no parking is allowed between the hours of 21:30 and 07:30. Failure to comply with the terms will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice. The driver entered the car park at 20:23 and remained on site until 21:44. During the no parking hours. As the driver remained on site between the hours of 21:30 to 21:44 a parking charge notice was issued. The appellant says the signs in the car park are not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has provided website links to information relating to text size. I must advise that due to our own security processes we are unable to access any third party websites and as such I have not reviewed these websites when considering the appeal. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. section 19.2 of the BPA code of practice which states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use” Having reviewed the signage within provided by both parties, I am satisfied that the signs have met the requirements of section 19.2. this is because it is shown that there is an entrance sign displayed on the entrance to the car park, which the driver had the opportunity to see on entry to the car park. This sign advised them to read the further terms and conditions within the car park. Therefore, it was down to the driver to read the further terms and conditions within the car park itself. 

In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signage 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.” Paragraph 19.3 also explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Appendix B of the British Parking Association Code of Practice explains that, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual”. When parking on private land 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. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied the driver was afforded this opportunity and as per the evidence provided the signage is clear. I note the appellant has commented on how the operator has altered the images however in this case I must take all evidence on face value. As I am not in receipt of sufficient evidence to support the images provided have been altered I cannot conclude that they have been in this case. 

The appellant says there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge and fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant raises Parking Eye vs Beavis and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The appellant has also referred to Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The fairness of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. The court found that the charge was not unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations because the charge was no higher than to achieve the operator's objective of effectively managing the car park. 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. The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair. With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, I have to take into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. 

The appellant says no landowner authority had been provided. The operator has provided a witness statement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. Having review both the appellants grounds of appeal and the comments raised, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met and the operator has issued the PCN correctly, as such the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Show us pics of the hidden terminal inside, and signs beside it. Surely PEye supplied that evidence to POPLA?

And pics of the outside t&cs too?

I'm confused that the Assessor made no mention of the keypad or extended stay you get if keying in your VRM. Did your appeal make it clear that's what you were appealing about?

hsadat

Coupon-mad said:

Show us pics of the hidden terminal inside, and signs beside it. Surely PEye supplied that evidence to POPLA?

And pics of the outside t&cs too?

I'm confused that the Assessor made no mention of the keypad or extended stay you get if keying in your VRM. Did your appeal make it clear that's what you were appealing about?

The gym first opened in February 2024, and I joined at that time. However, they initially didn’t have the entry terminals installed—they were only added around September 2024, if I recall correctly. During the period before their installation, I never had to use them.

Unfortunately, I didn’t realise the terminals had been installed, so I continued using the gym as usual without registering my car. As a result, I received two fines. In my appeal, I mistakenly didn’t mention anything about the terminals, as I focused solely on the existing templates and appeals.

I plan to visit the gym tomorrow to take photos of the terminals and the posted terms and conditions outside.

Coupon-mad

Get lots of pics, especially inside, as in my experience all you tend to get is a crappy A4 piece of paper. Nothing to really draw your attention.

Please get good evidence of that.

Are you saying the PPC DIDN'T attach proof of the keypads nor talk about that? They only accused you of an overstay that didn't happen?

Do you think your appeal could have been clearer? It seems like the Assessor wasn't told that the appeal was about a hidden keypad.

hsadat

Coupon-mad said:

Get lots of pics, especially inside, as in my experience all you tend to get is a crappy A4 piece of paper. Nothing to really draw your attention.

Please get good evidence of that.

Are you saying ParkingEye DIDN'T attach proof of the keypads nor talk about that? They only accused you of an overstay that didn't happen?

Do you think your appeal could have been clearer? It seems like the Assessor wasn't told that the appeal was about a hidden keypad.

Hi, I’d like to break this down by providing both copies of the alleged violation from UKPC.





According to them, the term I violated was 'No parking between 21:30 and 07:30,' as stated on the signage. However, the text is incredibly small, as shown in the photos below, and difficult to see from a distance.







Here's a photo of the terminals inside.




The main focus of my appeal was the inadequate and barely visible signage, which I thought I made very clear when appealing to POPLA. Unfortunately, I didn’t mention anything about the terminals inside and assumed that my argument about the small print stating 'No parking between 21:30 and 07:30' would be enough for them to understand. I’d also like to add that I have the login data from both occasions when I visited the gym. Let me know what you think. Many thanks

Coupon-mad

How come the signs don't mention Pure Gym's extended stay offer or the keypad system? UKPC's 'no parking after 9.30pm' terms are impossible to comply with for any gym member!

I guess Pure Gym is quite new to this site?

The fact is, there's now an alternative contract after 9.30pm and the UKPC signs fail to mention it. That alternative offer is completely the opposite of UKPC's terms, which need updating.

Pure Gym's new alternative offer: 'free parking even after 9.30pm' is offered clearly on a banner and there's no caveat that says you "agree to pay £100" if you don't use the keypad blocked by the bins!  The banner also doesn't mention UKPC do your contract was with PureGym.

Get your MP to complain to the landowner that the terms at PureGym are not reflected on the contractual signs. Why not? The property agent needs to insist UKPC change the incorrect signs.