POPLA HIGH SIGN AND SUN BLINDING ON ENTRANCE

juehankie

juehankie saidthe WHITE 1 is behind a tree/ hedge. and ABSOLUTELY not visible on entrance from the angle I came in. 
the WHITE 2 is NOT even there ! 
I went NOWHERE near the others to see them . i didnt use the store or leave the car

the WHITE 1 is behind a tree/ hedge. and ABSOLUTELY not visible on entrance from the angle I came in. 
the WHITE 2 is NOT even there ! 
I went NOWHERE near the others to see them . i didnt use the store or leave the car

juehankie

Le_Kirk said:

P ITS A FREE SITE OF 2 HOURS USE. WE USED IT FOR PARKING PRACTICE OF A BAY ONCE STORE WAS CLSOED. WE SAW NO SIGNS
(THEIR EVIDENCE PACK SHOWS SIGNS WHICH WERE NOT VISIBLE AS THEY WERE EITHER BEHIND A BUSH ON ENTRY OR FAR AWAY FROM THE BAY WE USED. )

Who sent that to whom?  If you submitted it, you seem to have shot yourself in the foot by admitting to being there when the site was closed and using it for driving/parking practice.  You needed to rely on the missing/obscure signage aspect .  Suggest you repost that wall of text from POPLA with some paragraph breaks so regulars will be able to read it.

this is CAPITALS is me telling this forum. 

juehankie

Coupon-mad said:

But did you use the POPLA point challenging 'no landowner authority' in your appeal? The one already written in the 3rd post of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST?

If not, then this won't matter as they only have to respond to matters you raised.

no. because they stated they had authority. 

James_Poisson

That plan is of no use what so ever, I imagine it was produced when the car park was originally taken on by them and has no date on it, it will show the installer where to site them at best.

Their photo dated last September again is not evidence of what was in existence on the day, if they want to use ANPR they will have to accept (though they won't) that it does one thing only, it does not prove anything other than alleged time on site.

Coupon-mad

The plan shows no signs at all if you park facing the building. None!

juehankie

UPDATE:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

E8****

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the car park for longer than the authorised stay

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. - There are no signs at all from the vantage point - The hedge is overgrown which hides any signs upon entering - As they did not leave the vehicle, no signs were seen - They were not the driver - They cannot upload further evidence - They utilised the car park during a lesson and used a bay with no obvious signage - They were advised by staff that motorists cannot park during the hours the store was closed - There were no signs by the bay they used The appellant has provided 1. x14 images of the car park in question After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. They further state that there is no sign upon entering the site, they have attempted to upload further evidence but has not been able to do this. The photographic evidence is dates 11 September 2024 which is irrelevant to the date of the alleged breach. They further add that they did send an appeal and evidence although the operator states this was not received. They have also provided the drivers details. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. I note the appellant has stated that they have further evidence to which they were unable to upload. POPLA have received no notification of this, so were unable to assist in this matter, therefore I must assess the case based on the evidence that has been provided. In terms of the drivers details, the appellant was afforded this opportunity during the initial appeals process, therefore I cannot take this into consideration when making my decision and consider the appellants liability for the PCN as the registered keeper at the time of the alleged breach. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for remaining at the car park for longer than the authorised stay. In their appeal, the appellant stated that there were no signs to be seen on the day in question. The operator provided timestamped images of the signs on the car park, along with a site map to show were these signs can be found. From reviewing this evidence, the images of the signs are dated in September 2024. The appellant has also provided 14 images of signs at the car park in question. From comparing this evidence, were the site map shows there is a sign upon entering the site, the appellants evidence labelled 'entering carpark' shows that no such sign can be seen. They do further state in their appeal that the hedge looks overgrown and this may be the cause of the hidden sign. Due to this, I do not find it unreasonable to state this is the case, as the operators evidence shows the sign is clear and visible, this was back in 2024, and within a year, it is reasonable for the hedges to be overgrown and blocking the signage upon entry. The other images provided from the appellant show that there is a lack of signage around the car park for motorists to be able to view and read. This is also confirmed within the site map. Due to the above, I am satisfied that there is a lack of signage around the car park and it is evident that the entrance sign is no longer visible for reasonings that could be potentially caused by the hedges. Where I appreciate there is signs at this site, it is a possibility that should motorists not park by one of the signs, the terms could easily be missed. Therefore, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Coupon-mad

Nicely done!