POPLA Decisions

They say that a complaint Notice to Keeper was never served.

I hope that was a typo by you OP, as someone at POPLA who must type it 50 times a day would surely not mistake COMPLIANT for COMPLAINT!

............. and well done for your win.

Finally got this through today after my appeal to EuroCar Parks. Disappointed as my main appeal and evidence was for the lighting at the entrance being extremely poor (only light by a street light on the outside of the perimeter of the site.

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display ticket / permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says that the entrance to the site of the car park is at a right angle to the road with a short pavement to cross to enter. They say the entrance sign faces at an angle to the road you enter from making it difficult to read the signage. Within their appeal the appellant explains that Keeper liability has not been established as the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 since the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing and only the driver can be liable for the charge. They state that there is no evidence that the parking operator has the authority to issue charges on the land in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They state that the signage is non-compliant at the entrance with the BPA Code of Practice and that the site is unlit at night failing to reveal additional signage. Further, the appellant says that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is not reliable or accurate and does not count the time that the vehicle was stationary and parked. In addition, the appellant says that the driver may have exited and re-entered the site within the grace period given. They state that the ANPR images fail to display the number plate correctly with a black bar at the top with the apparent time stamp which they state calls into question the ANPR authenticity stating that software is freely downloadable to add such information. The appellant references another parking operator within their appeal disputing its ANPR practice. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider PoFA 2012. The operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle who maintains throughout their appeal to POPLA that they were not the driver. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper which I reviewed against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the keeper is liable for the charge. When entering a private car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions and comply with them. If, for whatever reason, the motorist does not feel that they can meet the terms and conditions offered or feels that more suitable parking can be found elsewhere, there would be sufficient time to leave the site prior to entering a contract with the parking operator. By remaining and parking the motorist has implied their acceptance of the contract offered in the signage advertised. At this site the signage sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The signage states “UP TO 1 HOUR £0.90”, “PURCHASE AND DISPLAY A VALID TICKET OR PERMIT CLEARLY INSIDE YOUR WINDSCREEN OR HAVE AVALID PAY BY PHONE SESSION”. At the entrance to the site the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have captured vehicle registration, XXXXX. The entry time was recorded as 00:28 with an exit time recorded as 00:46. The total stay for this visit was 17 minutes. The ANPR cameras record the duration from the point of entry to the point of exit. Vehicle registration details are matched against the data produced by the ANPR system; any breaches identified will result in the issuance of a PCN. In this case I can see that the operator issued a PCN as no valid pay and display ticket / permit was purchased. In order to confirm if the contravention occurred I must consider the evidence from the parking operator that suggests the contract offered was breached. The operator has supplied evidence to show that the appellant’s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event. The search completed on the date shows a last paid entry to the site as 20:41. This evidence confirms that no other paid parking was received after on the date. As such, the appellant’s time at the site was an unpaid session. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site during the day and the hours of darkness. There is light at the entrance to the site which has been evidenced by the parking operator showing that there is a lighting pole casting light onto the entrance signage, this is further evidenced by the appellant’s submission. After reviewing the evidence supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that an offer of a contract was made between the parking operator and the motorist. I will now turn my attention to the evidence supplied by the appellant in support of their submission that the breach did not occur. I will need to review the details and evidence supplied to establish if there is sufficient information to dispute the validity of the PCN issued by the operator. The appellant says that the entrance to the site of the car park is at a right angle to the road with a short pavement to cross to enter. They say the entrance sign faces at an angle to the road you enter from making it difficult to read the signage. Within their appeal the appellant explains that Keeper liability has not been established as the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the PoFA 2012 since the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing and only the driver can be liable for the charge. They state that there is no evidence that the parking operator has the authority to issue charges on the land in line with the BPA Code of Practice. They state that the signage is non-compliant at the entrance with the BPA Code of Practice and that the site is unlit at night failing to reveal additional signage. Further, the appellant says that the ANPR system is not reliable or accurate and does not count the time that the vehicle was stationary and parked. In addition, the appellant says that the driver may have exited and re-entered the site within the grace period given. They state that the ANPR images fail to display the number plate correctly with a black bar at the top with the apparent time stamp which they state calls into question the ANPR authenticity stating that software is freely downloadable to add such information. The appellant references another parking operator within their appeal disputing its ANPR practice. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided evidence. As stated above at the beginning of my assessment I am satisfied that PoFA 2012 has been correctly used within the Notice to Keeper issued. As the keeper did not provide the name and serviceable address for the driver the liability for the outstanding charge passes to the keeper of the vehicle. Accordingly, the keeper is liable for the charge. It is evident, due to the time present on the ANPR images of the appellant entering and exiting the car park, that the appellant did not enter or exit the car park in daylight hours. Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Within their appeal the appellant has questioned the signage at the site. 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 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”. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. As the operator is issuing a parking charge on the basis that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, the burden of proof rests with the operator in showing that a contravention of the terms and conditions took place. The operator has provided evidence of the signage present at the site in darkness, therefore I can evidence that the appellant was able to see and read the signage present at the site in question during the time they spent at the site. I am confident that the entrance to the site is sufficiently lit to highlight the fact that the motorist was entering a car park that had restrictions in place. If when the appellant ventured further into the site they could not see any further signage or payment machines they had the option to leave the facilities. Having reviewed the site, it is small with a relatively large number of signs in position. The operator has supplied a site map within its evidence that confirms the position of the signage at the site. In line with the BPA guidelines the operator has met the minimum requirements. Section 21 within the BPA Code of Practice references the use of ANPR cameras on private land. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. POPLA looks to see if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. As the operator has supplied evidence of the ANPR images taken of the vehicle and the reference to this upon their signage I consider the reference to the use of ANPR cameras is sufficient. As such, the burden of proof passes to the appellant to disprove the operator’s assertion. However, from the information provided by the appellant there is nothing to dispute the operator’s use of the ANPR cameras at the site. The appellant suggests that the driver may have entered and left the site within the grace period offered. A grace period allows a motorist to enter a site and leave, or to enter a site read the terms and conditions and exit if they feel the terms and conditions could not be complied with. However, if a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and the motorist must only decide not to park, and take no other action, whilst at the site. As there is no evidence to suggest that the driver left the site and re-entered it I cannot comment on this point. The ANPR images confirms that the driver made one entry and one exit to the site during the times given. It should be noted that I will not comment on another private parking operator within this appeal response. If the appellant wishes to pursue their claim this is a matter to be conducted outside of the POPLA appeals service. Further, I do not feel it relevant to comment on the point given by the appellant regarding the use of software to alter the PCN issued, if this is a matter that remains disputed by the appellant I encourage them to seek clarity directly with the parking operator or report the issue to the Information Commissioners Office following its procedures. Looking at the evidence supplied by the appellant I can see that there is signage at the entrance, the background buildings are well lit. A second photograph of the signage shows that there are two signs upon entry, one of which is on the driver’s side, the other on the passenger side. In consider that both are positioned sufficiently to be seen upon entry. The third photograph taken to demonstrate that the car park is unlit does not show the entire car park area but just one small area on the perimeter of the site. I agree that this picture taken from outside the car park does not show any lighting. Ultimately, and in conclusion, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they can meet the terms and conditions offered at the site before parking. In this case I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that they must pay to park. For the time that the vehicle remained at the site a payment of 90p was required. Based on the evidence provided, it is my assessment that the appellant breached the terms and conditions offered and that the PCN was issued correctly. As such, I must refuse this appeal.

Please stop spamming this around the forum!

SJBANGRYPARKER wrote: »

Where do I go from here do I pay the fine or wait for court.

Wait for court - but don't hold your breath.

This will show you the chances of that happening:

Over two hundred thousand tickets issued over the last three years but only four court cases during that time... and we don't know if any of those four court attendances were anything to do with parking.

Odds look good to me.