POPLA assessment and decision
07/07/2025
Verification Code -
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Stuart Lumsden
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The operator has failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 and cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. • The appellant has raised section 19.3 and 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice and states the signs are not illuminated. • The appellant has raised section 14.1 of The Private Parking Single Code of Practice and would like to see evidence the operator has authority to issue PCN’s. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • 3 images of the same sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and note they have raised many grounds, for the purposes of my decision, I will be focusing on signage. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with it’s Code of Practice which sets out minimum guidelines for private parking operators. Section 19.3 of the Code relates to specific terms signage and states: 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. It is evident due to the images of the vehicle’s entry and exit, that the appellant did not visit the car park in daylight hours. In relation to the contrast and illumination of signage, Appendix B of the British Parking Association Code of Practice explains that, “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”. The appellant has provided 3 images of the same sign taken from the entrance to the site. The images are partially visible with clear lighting in the background showing there is lighting in place, but it’s unclear when the images were taken as they have no metadata. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack, and it has provided images of signs throughout the site and upon entry during daylight hours. It has also provided images of illuminated signs during the hours of darkness, showing that signs are lit and visible. Whilst I accept this, the images were taken on 15th May 2025, 2 months after the breach. Both the appellants images and the operator’s images do not demonstrate that signs were lit on or before the date of the breach. As the operator has failed to demonstrate that clear and compliant signs were lit and visible on or before the date of the breach, I cannot conclude that they were. As such, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.