POPLA Rejected against CEL

Hi,

I am new here, wish I knew about this forum before.

Sorry for the long post, as it includes the decision from the Portal.

Long story short, I visited a Wellbeing Centre and it was closed and as I had some other work in the shop nearby I left the car there. CEL sent me a parking charge.

I went with appeal and got it rejected and then POPLA, which also rejected. There were signs that said "Absolutely No Parking" but the car park apparently is free to use but you have to register, for me it was impossible. The signs that explain to register your vehicle were exactly the same colour and format as the first one so it can be easily ignored. Plus the wordings and fine were in very small print, hard to see when driving. So CEL argued I should've left straight away and because I waited for 16 mins I need to pay. POPLA stated that I should have looked around.

They also mentioned that they allowed me 10 minutes of grace period but when I was researching I came across that BPA code that I will be allowed 10 mins for entering and 10 for leaving but POPLA discounted that comment because I did not mention it in my initial appeal - I mean isn't that part of the law? shouldn't that be considered regardless?

In a nutshell; I cannot stress this enough that I do not wish to pay £100 for a free carpark for 16 minutes. Also I think POPLA's decision is unfair.

Below is the full summary. Please advise what can I do from here. I can ignore it but am scared about my credit rating etc.

Kind Regards,

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they visited a Wellbeing Centre and it was closed. The appellant states they left and received a notice a couple of months later. The signage is invalid as this is a free car park. In order to use the car park you must register your vehicle details which were impossible to do at the time as the centre was closed. No signage when entering the car park or showing closing hours. The appellant did not cause any loss to the parking operator. The appellant states that the lease company have charged the appellant monies for administration fees and request that the parking operator remove the charge and reimburse them the administration fees. The appellant has provided evidence of photographs of the parking site. In their comments to POPLA the appellant reiterates their version of events on the day in question. They also state that the parking charge is in small print something which the driver can easily miss. The appellant has also raises Grace Period as an appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering his liability as driver of the vehicle. The terms and conditions at the site state “permit holders only – members/visitors must register for a permit inside small heath wellbeing centre or the library. If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100". In this instance the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to obtain an electronic permit for his vehicle. The operator has provided copies of its signage. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle VRM entering the site at 17:54 and departing at 18:10 a total duration of 16 minutes. The appellant’s case is that they visited the Wellbeing Centre after it was closed. The appellant states they left and received a notice a couple of months later. The appellant states the parking operator alleges they sent a notice a couple of months earlier. The signage is invalid as there is free parking. In order to use the car park you must register your vehicle details which were impossible to do at the time as the centre was closed. No signage when entering the car park or showing closing hours. The appellant did not cause any loss to the parking operator. The appellant states that the lease company have charged the appellant monies for administration fees and request that the parking operator remove the charge and reimburse them the administration fees. The appellant has provided evidence of photographs of the parking site. In their comments to POPLA the appellant reiterates their version of events on the day in question. They also state that the parking charge is in small print something which the driver can easily miss. The appellant has also raises Grace Period as an appeal. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. I accept that a motorist is unable to read signs whilst in motion as this would not be safe to do so. It remains that the operator has provided signage to confirm the terms and conditions of the site. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent. I acknowledge the comments of the appellant stating the signage was not clear. However the signage clearly states permit holders only and then goes on to say that members/visitors must register for a permit. The appellant has failed to obtain a permit and therefore is parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the parking operator. Whilst I acknowledge the centre is closed this does not mean the parking restrictions are not in force and therefore the appellant should have left as soon as they realised the centre was closed. The appellant has expressed dissatisfaction in regard to when the PCN was issued. While the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sections 21.6 and 21.7 outline aspirational guidelines relating to issuing PCNs, they are not mandatory and cannot be used to remove the liability of the PCN from the driver. The appellant has clearly identified themselves as the driver. The appellant did not cause any loss to the parking operator. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, Parking Eye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The act then moved on to define “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. As previously stated I am satisfied that the operator has complied with S.18 of the BPA and the signage at the site is “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the “adequate notice” of a driver entering this particular piece of land. On this basis, I am satisfied that the parking charge is acceptable after applying the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court in the Parking Eye-v-Beavis case. The appellant refers to the administration charge with Enterprise car hire. This is a third party dispute and POPLA is not able to comment. However it is likely that the appellant agreed to the terms and conditions of hiring the vehicle and this was part of that contract. POPLA is evidence based and can only assess an appeal based on the evidence presented by both parties. The evidence supplied by the appellant in relation to this appeal is insufficient to disprove that provided by the operator. The appellant raised some additional comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s evidence pack. The appellant refers to Grace Periods. As this point was not raised in the appellant’s original appeal I will disregard any reference to them in my appeal response. The motorist comments section is to be used to expand upon the original appeal points raised with POPLA and not to be used as a platform to raise new issues that the operator has not had the opportunity to address. Ultimately, 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. 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. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you