Newbie questions

No, you can't add stuff that was not in your appeal. You can only comment on the evidence.

Seems rather presumptuous (and false) to assume the registered keeper was the driver

They haven't.

doubled1989 wrote: »

Okay thanks. Please elaborate? In what way because I must have misunderstood it. It seems like they presumed that and assumed when the registered keeper has been in contact, no driver

They say:

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they have read the terms and conditions, by leaving the vehicle in the car park

Nothing wrong there. It is the driver that allegedly entered into the contract.

the driver has broken the terms and conditions and therefore we believe the Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued.

Seems in order too.

We have identified the appellant to be the keeper of the vehicle. This has been determined due as the appeal matches the information provided by the DVLA for the keeper.

You must agree with that.

The Parking Charge Notice is POFA compliant they are therefore liable for the Parking Charge Notice unless they wish to transfer liability to the driver at the time.

They are saying they are holding the keeper liable because the law allows them to transfer liability to the keeper from the driver.

This information has been provided in the appeal. And therefore we find them to be liable for the parking charge notice.

No really sure what they are trying to say here.


Nowhere are they saying that the keeper is the driver - just that they believe the circumstances are such that the law allows them to transfer liability to the keeper.

Whether they are right or not is something you will be able to confirm by studying the PoFA and the documentation you have to hand.

There's a link to PoFA Schedule 4 in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

doubled1989 wrote: »

Pofa is completely compliant which Is why I removed that from appeal/evidence

Then they have transferred liability to the keeper.

They have not assumed the keeper is the driver.

annoyingly lost at Popla. what can I now do

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict guidelines set out in section 9 of the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012, therefore the liability for the parking charge has been transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signage at the site states “Maximum Stay 20 Minutes”. The operator offers a facility to pay additional time prior to leaving the site. The operator offers a facility to pay for parking using the paybyphone system, failing this there is a helpline number to call for assistance. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The appellant’s vehicle registration, YY54 MVD, was captured entering the site at 11:02 and exiting at 11:40. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 37 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant for exceeding the maximum stay. The appellant has stated that they are the registered keep of the vehicle. They state that the parking operator has not shown that the individual it is pursing is the driver who may have been liable for the charge. They state that no presumption can be made about liability in this case and the appellant reserves the right not to name the driver. They state that the signage is not prominent and is obscured; therefore inappropriate, illegible and confusing. They state that the charge amount is not clear and the text is too small. In addition the appellant states that there is no contract with the landowner. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. The appellant has highlighted that they feel that the charge amount is not sufficient on the signage or that the signage itself is prominent causing an excess of charge. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. Within the contract supplied I can see that the contract with the landowner commenced on 28 February, 2017. It further states that the agreement is in place until terminated in accordance with the provisions given. For the purposes of this contract the termination provision is three months in writing by either party. The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that the appellant’s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event. I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. The photographic evidence provided by the appellant supports that given by the parking operator. Overall, I am satisfied that there is sufficient signage to alert motorists to seek out terms prior to parking. If a motorist is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or feels that the terms and conditions cannot be complied with, there would be sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.