Free Traffic Legal Advice

I did send it.  I appreciate the help on here, but you seem to assume that everyone has the same level of knowledge & understanding of these processes and the law as you do.  We don't.  If you are going to give up your time to help, it would be nice if you could do it in a less condescending manner. It's one of the reasons I found it stressful.

I have just been told my appeal has failed and I now have to pay £100.  Reasons given are below if you are interested:

POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. 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. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. I note the appellant claims that the car park is not relevant land and has provided a map of Stanstead Airport to show where the car park is situated. The parking operator has provided a map of the boundary of Airport Byelaws, and I am satisfied that the site does not fall within land under statutory control. Therefore, I am satisfied that the parking operator can pursue the PCN under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). For a notice to keeper to be compliant with the PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9.2, it needs to state that if the details of the driver during the time of the contravention are unknown or not provided, then the registered keeper is liable for the unpaid parking charge. It must also have been issued to the keeper within the relevant time period. I am satisfied the parking operator has successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper. I note the appellant has raised that this was not addressed in their initial appeal. POPLA’s remit does not have any authority over the parking operator’s process. If the appellant wishes to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they will need to follow the parking operator’s complaints process found on its website. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice sets the standards that parking operators are required to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who are not registered within Starbucks for 60 minutes of free parking. The parking operator has provided evidence of a system searches, to show that there was no terminal entry for the vehicle’s duration of stay. The vehicle was captured on site for 35 minutes. The parking operator confirms that at the time the vehicle was on the site, Starbucks was closed, so they would not have been able to register for free parking. As the appellant confirmed they understood there was 60 minutes of free parking on the site, I am satisfied they saw the signs and the terms and conditions were adequately brought to motorists’ attention. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is given the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the signs, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without authorisation 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.

The only way I could do it was to print off the rest of the document and scan it.  Please see here:

https://ibb.co/yBPxBd6k

I have realised that the link does not show the full objection document .  I don't have Adobe and I can't download the full thing to save it. 

Actually that wasn't working, please try this:

https://ibb.co/jvtB7VCf

I simply said that I could not work out how to do it, not that it could not be done.  I've managed it now.  The link to the whole appeal and evidence is below:

https://ibb.co/vvLZTJdfhttps://ibb.co/Xfkgd6tp

I can't work out how to attach a document or screenshot here. 

MET parking has submitted the following objections to my appeal.  Are you able to help me challenge these please?  I am not sure that the parking sign states that you do not have to pay when the shops are closed, but I have no evidence of that.

The keeper raises the following grounds for appeal: • No keeper liability As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park. We have included in section E a map showing the boundary of Stansted Airport, from which it is clear the area occupied by Southagte Park, outlined in yellow, is not part of the Airport. This map is the most recent version and was submitted to the High Court last year, as evidenced by the link provided in section E. In light of this, the site is not excluded by the definitions laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered Relevant Land. • Appeal points not addressed As demonstrated in section E, we addressed the appellant’s points regarding the airport byelaws. • Inadequate evidence of clear and prominent signage The free 60-minute parking period is only available to motorists whilst they are a customer of Southgate Park (Starbucks). At the time the vehicle was on site Starbucks was closed and therefore the driver was not a customer. As such, they were not entitled to the free parking period and payment was required for their stay. For the sake of clarity: this would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as there was no free stay at the time. All motorists were required to make payment to park on site. We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park, that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions, and that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. A motorist does not have to have read the terms and conditions of parking to enter into a parking contract, there is only the requirement that the parking operator affords them the opportunity to do so. As stated, we are confident that there is sufficient signage at the site in order to afford motorists the chance to read the terms and conditions that are in place. Upon entry to the site, it is the motorist’s obligation to seek out any terms and conditions that may be in place before choosing to park or remain on site. In summary, the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that there is a 60-minute free stay for Southgate Park customers and tariffs apply thereafter. Please note: as the parking event occurred while the on-site business was closed, there is no free stay. Should the driver have wished to use the car park while the business is closed, they should have paid the appropriate tariff. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without payment having been made. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused.