POPLA Decisions

A ridiculous decision in a resident's own space in a gated car park. His 'offence' was to be using a courtesy car with no permit...in his space!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77591&st=20


''{Operator is - Total Security Partners Limited}

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be refused. :eek:

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
giving the reason as: ‘Not displaying a valid permit’. The Operator submits
that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed
terms of parking.
The Appellant does not dispute that no permit was displayed in his vehicle at
the time of issue of the parking charge notice.
It is the Appellant’s case that he was driving a courtesy car, as his own vehicle
was in the garage for repairs. The Appellant submits that he was unaware
that parking restrictions were in force.
The Operator is seeking to rely on an agreement between itself and the
Appellant that the Appellant would display a valid permit, or face liability for
a parking charge. For such a term to be included in the agreement, it must
be ‘incorporated’ into the agreement. The only relevant method of
incorporation, in this case, is by notice. This means that the Appellant must
have been made aware of the term, before the agreement was made, in
order for it to be deemed part of the agreement. The Appellant will be
deemed to have been made aware of the term if the Operator had taken
reasonable steps to bring the term to the Appellant’s attention. The usual
method by which an Operator takes ‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying clear
signs around the site advertising the terms of parking.
Once an Appellant submits that he or she was unaware of any parking
restrictions, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that it took
reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the
Appellant by demonstrating that the signs at the time and location in
question were sufficiently clear.
The Operator has produced a photograph of the Appellant’s vehicle which
shows that he was parked directly next to a sign displaying the terms of
parking. These terms of parking were clear that a permit must be displayed at
all times, or a parking charge notice would be issued.
The Operator does not dispute that the Appellant possesses a valid permit;
however, the terms of parking are clear that a permit must be displayed
when parking at this site.
3960703009 3 07 June 2013
Although I find no evidence of dishonesty, I am not able to take into account mitigating circumstances. That an Appellant feels he or she had good reason for failing to comply with the terms of parking is not a reason for which I can allow an appeal. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.
I find that, by failing to display a valid permit, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed. ''


Not sure yet which adjudicator put their name to that 'decision'; I would be ashamed if it were me and knowing this is a resident with an allocated space (rights & easements would apply you'd think). And no, the OP did NOT take advice on the POPLA appeal which seems to have been rushed off with just mitigating circs about the courtesy car and forgetting to transfer the permit (= hopeless).