Free Traffic Legal Advice

Tomorrow. Se win lo  their website and unlawful threats.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must 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 as the driver’s details were not provided within the given timescale stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK).

The Single Sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code is effective for all parking events that occur on or after 1st October 2024. Parking operators have until 31st December 2026 by which to comply with the signage standards set out in The Single Sector Code of Practice.

As such, I will consider the signage standards as set out in the BPA Code of Practice Version 9 and refer to the Single Sector Code of Practice for all other relevant issues to summarise my reasons. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the appellant has questioned landowner authority of which the operator has responded to be providing the landowner contract.

After review, I am satisfied that this complies with section 14.1 of the Single Code and the operator has authority to manage the site and issue PCN’s to those who do not comply with the terms and conditions. Section 19.2 of the BPA’s Code says operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land.

The operator has provided an image of the entrance sign that tells motorists they are entering a car park where terms and conditions apply so I am therefore satisfied this complies with section 19.2 of the BPA’s code of practice and motorists are warned accordingly on entry to the car park. An entrance sign is only there to warn motorists that they are entering private land and terms and conditions are applicable. A motorist is not expected to read the entrance sign in full while driving so the terms and conditions are not included. However, they are expected to read the signs throughout the site having been warned they apply on entry.

Section 19.3 of the BPA’s Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. The parking operator has provided images of the signs which are placed throughout the car park and advise of the terms of parking. The terms and conditions shown on these signs state, “Visitor parking only, 1-hour maximum stay”. They also inform motorists that a £100 PCN charge will be issued to those who do not comply. The driver remained at the site for 1 hour and 38 minutes, so a PCN was issued for a 38 minute overstay.

The appellant has started that the driver is disabled and the operator has failed to consider this which is a breach of the Equality Act 2010. I acknowledge their comments; however, the operator was unaware of any personal disabilities prior to the parking event.

The appellant appealed to the operator as the registered keeper and said the driver had a valid blue badge without explain how their disability may have affected their ability to comply with the term and conditions.

This was rejected because the terms and conditions do not state there are any concessions for disabled badge holders and the appellant failed to provide them with anything to consider. I must also advise the appellant that, when looking at appeals, POPLA can only consider if the PCN has been issued correctly in line with the terms and conditions of the site in question.

POPLA cannot allow an appeal based on mitigating or personal circumstances as this is the operator’s decision at the first point of appeal on how they wish to progress after the terms and conditions were breached. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver exceeded the maximum stay time, so 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.

So at last, somenody finally went and looked and found the sign they were relying on wasn't there any more !