Free Traffic Legal Advice

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who do not park within marked bays. The operator has provided photographs of the vehicle parked across 2 bays. I note that the appellant says that they are appealing as the keeper and that the notice to keeper is not PoFA compliant. PoFA 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. I will be assessing the grounds of appeal using the new Single Code of Practice which replaced the 2024 British Parking Association (BPA) Code practice and relates to all PCN’s issued on or after 1 October 2024. However, the grounds of appeal relating to signage at the site will be assessed using the 2024 BPA Code of Practice Version 9 as this still currently applies. I acknowledge that the appellant says that the signage is inadequate as it cannot be read clearly from where the vehicle was parked. Section 19.3 of the BPA code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice. I am, therefore, satisfied that there was sufficient signage in place to make the driver aware of the terms and conditions of parking. I note that the appellant has also provided a photograph of the signage at the site which also demonstrates that there are signs on site. I note that the appellant says that signs cannot be read clearly from where the vehicle was parked however, as the vehicle was not parked in a disabled bay there is no requirement for this. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case the operator allows a motorist 5 minutes from entering the site to park, read the terms and conditions and decide if they can comply with them, if they cannot, then they can leave without incurring a PCN. Where a motorist chooses to stay, then they are deemed to have accepted the contract offered in the signage, which in this case is to park within the markings of the bay or space and by not doing so, the motorist is in breach of the terms and conditions of parking. I respect that there were not disabled bays available, that the size of the normal bays were not suitable to accommodate wheel chair access. I acknowledge also that the passenger of the vehicle is disabled and needed additional space to get in and out of the vehicle. As the driver chose to remain in the car park, they have accepted the contract offered within the signage and have agreed to park within the marked bay. If there were no parking spaces available in the disabled parking area and the normal bays were not sufficient for their passengers needs, then the driver could have left the site and parked elsewhere. I understand that the driver displayed the blue badge, however, there is nothing within the terms and conditions shown in the signage which allows motorists to park across 2 bays if they display a blue badge. I appreciate the appellant’s comments regarding the circumstances on the date in question. POPLA does consider whether issues of discrimination have had an effect on the parking contract. We know that the Equality Act specifically protects people with a disability or protected characteristics from unfavourable treatment, and this does apply during the provision of services such as parking. In order to assess what effect the Equality Act had in the present case, we would need to be satisfied that there had been unfavourable treatment, and that the appellant’s disability/characteristic was one of the reasons driving the unfavourable treatment. In this case, the warden has seen that the vehicle is parked across 2 parking bays and a PCN was issued in accordance with the signage. Whilst I understand the reason for parking across 2 bays were due to the passenger’s needs, this was not a factor that led to the issuance of the PCN. Therefore, I would not agree with the comments that the operator has breached the Equality Act. The signage on site is clear that that vehicles must be parked only within marked bays, and photographs have been provided showing that the vehicle was not parked within a marked bay. Any driver that parks outside of a marked bay would receive a PCN. While I understand the need to park across 2 bays, this ultimately does not exempt them from the terms and conditions of the contract they entered into when parking on site. I note that the appellant says that there is no evidence to show that the vehicle caused an obstruction, however, the fact remains that the vehicle was not parked within the markings of a bay and has breached the terms and conditions. Any complaints that the appellant may have regarding the operator’s comments in their evidence pack, is not within the remit of POPLA to address. The role of POPLA is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly, which it has been in this case. The appellant would need to address any complaints they have regarding the operator directly to the operator. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked across 2 bays and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Please show us exactly what you put in your POPLA appeal and the operators evidence pack.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. The passenger in the vehicle is a disabled person who requires additional space to embark/disembark the vehicle. As no vacant disabled bays were available, the size of the normal bays were not suitable to accommodate wheelchair access. They failed to notice the blue badge that had been presented on the dashboard of the vehicle. This is in breach of the Equality Act 2010. The signage is also inadequate as it cannot be ready clearly from where the vehicle was parked. This is confirmed by the evidence submitted by UKPC whereby they took a photograph of the nearest signage however this is not legible from the close distance of where the photo was taken, so it cannot be read from the distance of the parked car.