EV parking bay not clearly marked

Coupon-mad

Enrico_Fermi said:

POPLA appeal successful. Thanks all for you help and advice.

Ooh very good news! Show us.

Enrico_Fermi

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The English version of the sign is unreadable, from both the centre of the parking bay in question and when standing directly underneath the sign and the only possibly slightly readable sign is the lower sign but that's in Welsh. • The sign is too high to be legible and as shown in the photos the height is 2.9 m (9 1/2 foot) - this is the height to the bottom rim of the English sign so the words about terms & conditions and £100 - which is tiny - are actually ten feet up. • No sign has £100 in very large bold lettering, so one cannot make out that clause at all and cannot read the terms & conditions. • There is another sign that is not the parking operator’s sign, so it cannot be used by the parking operator for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This sign breaches the Code of Practice by using the banned words 'Penalty Charge Notice.' • The parking bay for the electric vehicle charging point is indistinguishable from other parking bays, apart from the disabled bays which are more clearly marked with yellow paint, and it is not immediately obvious that the bay should not be used for general parking. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and additionally states: • The parking operator claims that “The vehicle was parked in a clearly marked electric vehicle charging bay, with signage next to the vehicle” – this is disputed as no signage points to any bays to indicate this. • The parking operator states, “I do not dispute there is a generic sign about a penalty charge. There is no evidence this is a sign placed by the parking operator (it maybe be linked to a third party such as the owners of the site/retail park for example).” The operator’s comments are quite blasé and unprofessional as this sign still breaches the Code of Practice by using the banned words ‘Penalty Charge Notice.’ The appellant has provided photographs of the signage at the site and a tape measure measuring the height of the sign as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. In this case the parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant because their vehicle was parked in an electric charging point without using the charging facilities. The appellant appeals on the grounds that the English version of the sign is unreadable, from both the centre of the parking bay in question and when standing directly underneath the sign and the only possibly slightly readable sign is the lower sign but that's in Welsh. They say the sign is too high to be legible as shown in the photographs provided the height of the sign is 2.9 m (9 1/2 foot) - this is the height to the bottom rim of the English sign so the words about terms & conditions and £100 - which are tiny - are actually ten feet up. They say no sign has £100 in very large bold lettering, so one cannot make out that clause at all and cannot read the terms & conditions. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and have reviewed the images they have provided demonstrating the height of the sign and the signage at the site in conjunction with the evidence provided by the parking operator. I must now consider The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. I have reviewed the evidence of the signage provided by both parties and I do not dispute that there is an entrance sign at the site. Key to this case is Section 3.1.3 of the Code which contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is conspicuous and legible. Subparagraph i) requires the signage to be clear, unambiguous and not use the words “penalty” or “fine”, unless there is a statutory requirement to do so. I have disregarded the sign that is legible as this refers to Penalty Charge Notices as the parking operator has clearly stated that there is no evidence this is a sign placed by them and says it may be linked to a third party such as the owners of the site/retail park for example, therefore, it does not form part of the parking contract. I acknowledge that the parking operator has provided a signage location plan and evidence of the signage at the site, however, I do not consider that this is sufficient to rebut the appellant’s images that show the terms & conditions sign in English is at a height where it is not legible. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Enrico_Fermi

Coupon-mad said:

Enrico_Fermi said:

POPLA appeal successful. Thanks all for you help and advice.

Ooh very good news! Show us.

See above, and thanks again Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

That is great! The tapemeasure evidence won!

Enrico_Fermi

Coupon-mad said:

That is great! The tapemeasure evidence won!

  Yes. Well worth dragging the other half out to hold the tape.