Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct, Coventry
« on: June 05, 2025, 08:07:05 am »
I have copied and pasted the decision:
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The notice to keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The NTK only states that the vehicle was observed at 16:46, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking. Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that POFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement. • No presumption that the keeper was the driver can be made. • The parking bay is a parent and child bay. The hatched area forms part of the bay for use of the driver and the minors inside the vehicle. The signage on site does not indicate this is not the case. • The parking bay had an obstruction within it. There is a pillar that protrudes into the bay and thus, UKPC have not upheld their duty to provide suitable parking spaces. • There has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss. In Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence and given that, the driver parked in a way that would ensure all spaces around it were accessible, the charge doesn’t meet the necessary criteria of serving a legitimate interest. • The signage on site is inadequate and so no contract was formed. The signage is positioned high up and a small font size used. • The lighting conditions are poor, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out and even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to their attention. The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the POFA requirement for “adequate notice”. • There is a lack of landowner authority and no proof of UKPC’s right to operate here. Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said the bay is marked as a parent and child space, yet only has a hatched area on one side. The adjacent bay on the other side is not a parent and child bay, meaning there is no accessible buffer zone for loading or unloading children from that side. The driver had no realistic option but to position the vehicle in a way that allowed safe access from the driver side, adjacent to the non-parent bay. This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup and unfair. They have said having created a bay layout that is not fit for purpose-especially for parents with children, UKPC has opted to exploit these shortcomings rather than address them. They have said UKPC have made no attempt to explain how a single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is required. Without a recorded duration, it is impossible to establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any contractual terms can take effect. The appellant has said the operator has failed to provide a valid contract or sufficient evidence of landowner authority, as required under Paragraph 7.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The only material supplied is a partial, heavily redacted document labelled "Services Contract" dated 19/8/21, along with a similarly redacted “Contract Change Request Form” dated 31/03/22. The purported contract is explicitly marked as comprising 38 pages, yet only 5 pages have been disclosed. The vast majority of the content has been blacked out, including sections that would be necessary to establish the operator’s authority. Therefore, it is wholly unclear whether the operator is authorised to issue PCNs at this location at all, let alone enforce them. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. They have said UKPC also attempts to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case also does not automatically legitimise every £100 charge. That case was context-specific, relating to free parking overstays in a busy retail car park. Here, there is no evidence of obstruction, loss of amenity, or abuse of parking time. UKPC has not shown how issuing a penalty-style charge in this case serves any genuine or proportionate interest. They have said the existence of an undated signage plan does not confirm that it was implemented correctly or that all intended signs were installed. According to the document entitled "Signage Plan," there are only parent-and-child bays on Level 2 and UKPC’s photos show the vehicle next to the lifts, where a “Number 5” (420x600mm) sign was meant to be placed on a pillar. However, none of the attendant’s photos show this supposed sign. This demonstrates that the signage plan was not fully implemented and as a result, it should be disregarded. Additionally, UKPC’s case summary includes signage photos taken no later than 2023—some as early as 2021. These outdated images do not reflect the signage’s condition on the date of the alleged contravention. They were also taken in the summer, in bright daylight, whereas the alleged contravention occurred on 10/01/25 in Coventry, when sunset was at 4:15 PM, meaning poor lighting within the carpark and outside darkness would have impacted visibility of any signage. The appellant has said POPLA have previously upheld appeals where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both POFA and the BPA Code of Practice.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. This PCN has been issued for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. The signage at this site states all vehicles must only be parked within marked bays. The parking operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle parked on site, not wholly within a marked bay. The appellant has said in their appeal that the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to their attention. They have said the parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the POFA requirement for “adequate notice”. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorist’s attention within the signage. From the evidence of the signage on site provided by the parking operator, I can see that the consequence of not complying with the terms and conditions is in one of the smaller font sizes used on the signage. This is also the same colour as the rest of the text, and it is not in a different font or bold, nor has anything else been used to make it stand out. This information is visible when looking at a pdf image of the signage, but the parking operator’s images of the signage on site, show this information is in a small font and in amongst other text, and therefore I am not satisfied it is adequately brought to the attention of motorists. I appreciate the parking operator has separate signage on site that displays information about the £100 PCN, and this text is in a larger font size and in capital letters, however this only says a PCN will be issued if you fail to pay, and this is not the reason this PCN has been issued. Therefore, in this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The notice to keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The NTK only states that the vehicle was observed at 16:46, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking. Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that POFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement. • No presumption that the keeper was the driver can be made. • The parking bay is a parent and child bay. The hatched area forms part of the bay for use of the driver and the minors inside the vehicle. The signage on site does not indicate this is not the case. • The parking bay had an obstruction within it. There is a pillar that protrudes into the bay and thus, UKPC have not upheld their duty to provide suitable parking spaces. • There has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss. In Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence and given that, the driver parked in a way that would ensure all spaces around it were accessible, the charge doesn’t meet the necessary criteria of serving a legitimate interest. • The signage on site is inadequate and so no contract was formed. The signage is positioned high up and a small font size used. • The lighting conditions are poor, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out and even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to their attention. The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the POFA requirement for “adequate notice”. • There is a lack of landowner authority and no proof of UKPC’s right to operate here. Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said the bay is marked as a parent and child space, yet only has a hatched area on one side. The adjacent bay on the other side is not a parent and child bay, meaning there is no accessible buffer zone for loading or unloading children from that side. The driver had no realistic option but to position the vehicle in a way that allowed safe access from the driver side, adjacent to the non-parent bay. This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup and unfair. They have said having created a bay layout that is not fit for purpose-especially for parents with children, UKPC has opted to exploit these shortcomings rather than address them. They have said UKPC have made no attempt to explain how a single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is required. Without a recorded duration, it is impossible to establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any contractual terms can take effect. The appellant has said the operator has failed to provide a valid contract or sufficient evidence of landowner authority, as required under Paragraph 7.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The only material supplied is a partial, heavily redacted document labelled "Services Contract" dated 19/8/21, along with a similarly redacted “Contract Change Request Form” dated 31/03/22. The purported contract is explicitly marked as comprising 38 pages, yet only 5 pages have been disclosed. The vast majority of the content has been blacked out, including sections that would be necessary to establish the operator’s authority. Therefore, it is wholly unclear whether the operator is authorised to issue PCNs at this location at all, let alone enforce them. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. They have said UKPC also attempts to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case also does not automatically legitimise every £100 charge. That case was context-specific, relating to free parking overstays in a busy retail car park. Here, there is no evidence of obstruction, loss of amenity, or abuse of parking time. UKPC has not shown how issuing a penalty-style charge in this case serves any genuine or proportionate interest. They have said the existence of an undated signage plan does not confirm that it was implemented correctly or that all intended signs were installed. According to the document entitled "Signage Plan," there are only parent-and-child bays on Level 2 and UKPC’s photos show the vehicle next to the lifts, where a “Number 5” (420x600mm) sign was meant to be placed on a pillar. However, none of the attendant’s photos show this supposed sign. This demonstrates that the signage plan was not fully implemented and as a result, it should be disregarded. Additionally, UKPC’s case summary includes signage photos taken no later than 2023—some as early as 2021. These outdated images do not reflect the signage’s condition on the date of the alleged contravention. They were also taken in the summer, in bright daylight, whereas the alleged contravention occurred on 10/01/25 in Coventry, when sunset was at 4:15 PM, meaning poor lighting within the carpark and outside darkness would have impacted visibility of any signage. The appellant has said POPLA have previously upheld appeals where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both POFA and the BPA Code of Practice.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. This PCN has been issued for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. The signage at this site states all vehicles must only be parked within marked bays. The parking operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle parked on site, not wholly within a marked bay. The appellant has said in their appeal that the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to their attention. They have said the parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the POFA requirement for “adequate notice”. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorist’s attention within the signage. From the evidence of the signage on site provided by the parking operator, I can see that the consequence of not complying with the terms and conditions is in one of the smaller font sizes used on the signage. This is also the same colour as the rest of the text, and it is not in a different font or bold, nor has anything else been used to make it stand out. This information is visible when looking at a pdf image of the signage, but the parking operator’s images of the signage on site, show this information is in a small font and in amongst other text, and therefore I am not satisfied it is adequately brought to the attention of motorists. I appreciate the parking operator has separate signage on site that displays information about the £100 PCN, and this text is in a larger font size and in capital letters, however this only says a PCN will be issued if you fail to pay, and this is not the reason this PCN has been issued. Therefore, in this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
This is the original NtK. 
