Euro CarParks Unsuccessful POPLA appeal

Wolflobo1

This was Euro Car Parks.
for context ....
ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering the car park at 13:07
a ticket was purchased at 13:47 
for 3 hours stay. (Sorry in previous thread i wrote 4hrs - meant to write 3hrs)
the vehicle left at 16:39

The appeal was on the grounds of grace period, reasons given such as allowing time to find a space in a busy car park, getting children who were asleep... safely out of the car, queueing to pay for a ticket etc.
I also outlined all of the advice via the Newbie thread such as Grace periods, Signage, Land owner authority, POFA 2012.

Thank you

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

• The operator has not allowed a consideration or grace period and has not complied with the BPA Code of Practice. 

• The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

• There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

• The operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR.

• There is no evidence of the period parked and the Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

The appellant has reiterated and expanded upon their grounds of appeal in the comments. They add that there is no option to enter the time the vehicle entered on the payment machine.

The appellant has provided three images of their bank statement, a letter containing their full grounds of appeal and the operator’s rejection letter as evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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.

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I am therefore assessing keeper liability.

The appellant says that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024.

Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice.

The signage on the site clearly advises that motorists are required to display a valid ticket in the windscreen.

The tariffs are as follows:

Monday to Saturday…

Up to 1 hour £2.50…

Up to 2 hours £4.00…

Up to 3 hours £4.60…

Up to 4 hours £4.60.

Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge.

I have reviewed the images of the signs provided by the operator and I am satisfied that these comply with Section 19.4 of The BPA Code of Practice. There is no requirement for operators to place signs in each parking bay and 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 that the driver would have walked or driven past at least one of the operator’s signs and as such, was afforded this opportunity. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority and Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the operator has provided a redacted contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information.

The appellant has advised that they were not allowed a consideration or grace period Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park.

In this case the recommended consideration period according to Table B.1 is five minutes however as the motorist had not used the time to decide they were not entitled to an additional five minutes. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking.

In this case the recommended grace period for the site is 10 minutes and as the vehicle remained on the site for an additional 32 minutes which exceeded the recommended 10 minutes.

I note that the appellant’s ground for appeal is whether the operator has complied with the GDPR laws and refers to the ICO. Please note, that POPLA’s role is to assess if the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of whether the operator has complied with GDPR rules or lack thereof. On this basis, my decision would focus on the other aspects of the appeal in order to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked .The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if any motorist has not paid enough for parking, a PCN is issued. 

I have reviewed the appellant’s evidence and I acknowledge that the appellant had made a payment for three hours however they had remained on the site for an additional 32 minutes without making payment.

When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of all motorists to be aware of how long their vehicle has remained at the site and to make the appropriate payment for parking. Operators are not obligated to calculate the length of stay for motorists or to ensure each motorist has purchased sufficient parking time before leaving the site.

After considering the evidence from both parties the driver parked on the site and did not purchase enough parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Gr1pr

The alternative is to fight your corner in court,  in the meantime ignore the powerless debt collectors letters 

Castle

Wolflobo1 said:

This was Euro Car Parks.
for context ....
ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering the car park at 13:07
a ticket was purchased at 13:47 
for 3 hours stay. (Sorry in previous thread i wrote 4hrs - meant to write 3hrs)
the vehicle left at 16:39

The signage on the site clearly advises that motorists are required to display a valid ticket in the windscreen.

The tariffs are as follows:

Monday to Saturday…

Up to 1 hour £2.50…

Up to 2 hours £4.00…

Up to 3 hours £4.60…

Up to 4 hours £4.60.

Well, the obvious question is: are these the tariffs as set out on the signs. 

Wolflobo1

Castle said:

Wolflobo1 said:

This was Euro Car Parks.
for context ....
ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering the car park at 13:07
a ticket was purchased at 13:47 
for 3 hours stay. (Sorry in previous thread i wrote 4hrs - meant to write 3hrs)
the vehicle left at 16:39

The signage on the site clearly advises that motorists are required to display a valid ticket in the windscreen.

The tariffs are as follows:

Monday to Saturday…

Up to 1 hour £2.50…

Up to 2 hours £4.00…

Up to 3 hours £4.60…

Up to 4 hours £4.60.

Well, the obvious question is: are these the tariffs as set out on the signs. 

No they're not, the signs state 
up to 4 hours £5.60

this was an error wrote out by the POPLA assessor 

fisherjim

Ignore POPLA, a judge will have more impartiality if it gets to that, they are always making mistakes but even when they own up it makes no difference.

As for your evidence you cannot just say:

 "The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself".

Unless you evidence it with dated photographs, POPLA will always go with photos or images from their paymasters even if it's the wrong car park unless you debunk it.