Private Parking Solutions - Hounslow PCN

intex310

Unsuccessful POPLA received today:

DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameGary MilneAssessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking in a no parking area.

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. • Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non complaint. No consideration period applied. The driver located signage, read to interpret the signage and left within 5 mins. • Signs do not make the boundaries clear. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car par are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no boundary of the venue. Starting or entering the site claimed is not clear. • The original notice to keeper is not PoFA complaint as it does not contain the information required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b). • No evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant has provided 1. Their appeal in a separate letter. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates much of their concerns from the initial appeal. The add that the vehicle seems to have stopped, read the confusing signage and moved off. The appellant raised further issues regarding wording ‘that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full’ and is looking for a verbatim quote which specifies that 'the parking charges have not been paid in full’. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012). As such, I am considering the appellant ’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. There is no requirement for POPLA to quote verbatim from the PCN when it complies with PoFA. 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. I note the appellant is looking for a verbatim quote which specifies that the parking charges have not been paid in full. However, the issue of this case is not whether the appellant could have paid for parking, rather that they parked in a no parking area. The PCN does state this as the parking infringement and therefore the PCN was issued correctly. No further consideration needs to be given with regard to the PCN in relation to the parking offence. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise No Parking At Any Time. The motorist is advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided photographs of the signage and a site map to demonstrate location of the signage in the area. The operator has also provided photographs showing the appellant vehicle parked between 15:00:12 to 15:04:02. The appellant has stated the signs do not make the boundary clear. However, within the photographs provided by the operator of the parking infringement, there is a sign on the wall where the appellant parked stating the terms of No Parking. I am satisfied that the appellant parked in an area where it was clearly displayed no parking was allowed. I have also considered the signage in relation to the relevant code. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice 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 be conspicuous and legible. In this case the operator's evidence clearly demonstrates the signage complies with the code and clearly communicated the terms and conditions to the appellant. The appellant has raised concerns over the consideration and grace periods. 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. It is to allow the user time to leave the car park if they do not wish to accept the terms for parking on the site. However, in a no parking area, there is no consideration time, the appellant should stop and leave their vehicle. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice also requires a parking operator to allow a grace period of 10 minutes 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. The grace period is not a period of free parking. In this case, there is no grace period and there is no allowed parking period. The appellant has stated the operator has not demonstrated that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this location. 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. 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. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as parked in a no parking area, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

"However, in a no parking area, there is no consideration time,"

Only because the BPA and IPC conspired to re-write the 2022 Code and knowingly made 30 anti-fairness changes to it.

As the CMA says, the self-serving joke Joint Code isn't the law.

The car was there less than FOUR MINUTES picking up a passenger! This isn't fair or anything like long enough to see signs and read them, and leave.

And covert surveillance like this is illegal. Excessive and unjustified where there is a warden on foot.

This is why ONLY windscreen PCNs are required at residential sites, due to the daily life normal comings & goings, including brief stops for deliveries, taxis, passenger pick ups and setting down, loading and unloading.

yarpsnehpets

What a mess from Gary Milne who shows that he does not understand the requirements of PoFA.

Gary Milne states, "The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012). As such, I am considering the appellant ’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper."

He then states, "There is no requirement for POPLA to quote verbatim from the PCN when it complies with PoFA."

The point the appellant was making is that the PCN does not contain the required paragraphs of mandatory wording which PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) demands. The Assessor appears to think that the missing wording is irrelevant in an instance where other requirements of PoFA are complied with? This is nonsense.

Gary Milne then moves on and states, "I note the appellant is looking for a verbatim quote which specifies that the parking charges have not been paid in full. However, the issue of this case is not whether the appellant could have paid for parking, rather that they parked in a no parking area."

Unbelievable - one has to ask if Gary Milne has even read (and understood) the requirements of paragraph 9(2)(b) - regardless of the 'offence' (Gary's word!), the notice must still state the mandatory wording required by Schedule 4.

Absolute nonsense from POPLA again as the Assessor carefully tiptoes around the significant appeal point which clearly demonstrates a non compliant notice. The requirements of 9(2)(e) are not met either.

Coupon-mad

@intex310 please post that joke of a decision into POPLA Decisions at the top of the forum. But add a few paragraph breaks to the wall of text first. Please don't post it in a chunk like the above!

intex310

What should I do next?

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82110262#Comment_82110262

nothing unless you move house

Nellymoser

Prepare yourself for the next stage, Letters chasing payment, learn which ones to ignore and the one you reply to. See: NEWBIES POST 4 - Debt Collectors Letters and POST 2 - Small Claim.