Total Car Parks - Market Square, Morley - 30 mins overstay - at POPLA

memgrubb · 20 October at 11:18AM

Coupon-mad said:

memgrubb said:

POPLA decision

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver overstayed the free parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant advises that they hole a blue badge as they suffer with osteoarthritis, diabetes and hypertension. They explain that they also have mobility issues which they are undergoing medical care for. They advise that the operator has not suffered a significant loss as additional parking would have only cost £1. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a blue badge, a copy of a medical letter and a copy of a driving licence. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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. The appellant is being held liable for this PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The notice provided is full compliance as it contains all of the required wording and was sent out within the required time scales. The signs on site advise that two hours free parking is permitted and exceeding this without purchasing additional parking will result in a parking charge of £100. The operator ANPR images show that the driver was on site for two and a half hours. This confirms that the driver exceeded the free period.
As a member of the British Parking Association the operator is required to comply with the Single Code of Practice. Section 5.2 allows the driver a grace period and Section 4 advises that it can be reasonable to extend this for disabled users. The appellant has provided a blue badge and a medical letter regarding their mobility issues. While I acknowledge these circumstances and supporting evidence, I cannot consider that it is reasonable to extend a grace period for 30 minutes even as a reasonable adjustment. If the driver required such a significant period of additional time, they were required to purchase this.
The court case of Parking Eye V Beavis considered if the amount of a PCN needed to be proportionate to the loss suffered by the operator. The case decided that the amount did not need to be proportionate to the loss as the purpose of the PCN was to encourage compliance with the terms and conditions. In this case the terms and conditions including the amount of the PCN are clearly displayed on the signs so the driver was made aware from the start that they would pay a PCN of £100 so I cannot consider that it is unreasonable.
The appellant has provided a copy of a driving licence but the fact that the appellant can driver is not in dispute. If the driver could not park in compliance with the parking restriction they should have removed their vehicle from the car park and found somewhere else to park.
After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver exceeded the free stay and did not purchase additional time. They therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

I posted this in POPLA DECISIONS. They are breaking the law:

Coupon-mad said:
"While I acknowledge these circumstances and supporting evidence, I cannot consider that it is reasonable to extend a grace period for 30 minutes even as a reasonable adjustment."

Well the law - Equality Act 2010 - says otherwise. Councils allow at least an hour longer.

This is why POPLA isn't fit for purpose. They would need PROPER training on the Equality Act and more.

Cheers. just posting in here to keep it updated