POPLA accept ParkingEye witness statement.

One point appeal on landowner authority.

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has questioned whether the operator has authority from the landowner to operate on the land in question.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The signage at the site states “1 ½ hour max stay. Aldi Customers Only. For use only whilst shopping in store. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. Having reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied there are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout the site displaying the terms and conditions offered with a helpline number to use if a motorist needs assistance. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the vehicle was at the car park for two hours 57 minutes, which is one hour 27 minutes longer than permitted. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

The appellant has questioned whether the operator has authority from the landowner to operate on the land in question.


As the driver is unknown, I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. If a Parking Operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the operators evidence, I am satisfied the provisions of PoFA 2012 have been complied with to transfer the liability to the registered keeper.
Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

The operator have provided a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner confirming they have authority to operate on the land, due to this despite the appellant’s comments I am satisfied the operator does indeed have authority to operate on the land in question.
It is the duty of the motorist to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they exceeded the maximum parking time allowed, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Will update with appeal text and rebuttal later.