I have just rec'd my popla decision....it was SUCCESSFUL!!!!






Thanks so much for all the info i gained off here, it really has been invaluable. It may have taken a while to put my case together, and ALOT of reading and studying....but i wouldnt have known where to start if it wasnt for this forum. I wouldnt have even had a clue!
DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name
Michael Byrne
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that there is no evidence that the operator has Landowner Authority to issue the PCN. The appellant states has failed to identify that it is pursuing the driver of the vehicle who may have been liable for the PCN. The appellant does not consider the signage prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has advised that the parking charge was not made prominent on the signage. The appellant states that the driver therefore did not have the opportunity to read about the £85 PCN, which they consider out of proportion. The appellant states that the operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Code of Practice rules for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and surveillance cameras. The appellant considers the photographic evidence to be doctored and does not show evidence of the vehicle contravening the terms of the car park. The appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s PCN appeal letter to support their case.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Maximum stay 2 hours...Cameras in operation Monday to Sunday 06:00 hours to 19:00 hours...This car park is patrolled...Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £85 PCN...Parking limited to 2 hours". The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle XXXXXXX entering the car park at 14:10 and leaving at 16:39, totalling a stay of two hours and 29 minutes. The appellant has advised that the parking charge was not made prominent on the signage. The appellant states that the driver therefore did not have the opportunity to read about the £85 PCN, which they consider out of proportion. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-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 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”. 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 not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, I do not consider it necessary to consider these, as I have already allowed the appeal on the above basis. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and must allow the appeal.