Free Traffic Legal Advice

Just an update, I have received email from POPLA that the compliant has been excalated, not sure if they will re-evaluate my case but will let you know.

POPLA has refused my appeal !! What do I do next pls?


POPLA Response =>

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park displayed on the signs located within the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these. The signs on this site confirm free parking is permitted for a maximum stay of three hours and failure to comply will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for three hours and 41 minutes. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. This 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based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022.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 came into force on the 1 October 2024 and applies to all PCNs issued after this date. The new coded supersedes all previous versions of the BPA code of practice. The appellant has not admitted to being the driver. I will therefore be considering their responsibility as keeper of the vehicle. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. The notice also identifies the creditor. Further, on reviewing the Notice to Keeper provided by both parties, I am satisfied this complies with the relevant provisions and therefore, I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. Section 18.2 of the BPA code of practice no longer applies. It is worth noting that section 18.2 has not applied to signage since version 7 2018 of the BPA code of practice. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. 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 operator has provided multiple images of the entrance sign and also signage within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and at the entrance and that these signs meet the requirements of the Single Code of Practice. I recognise the appellant has provided two photographs however these images are not time or date stamped. As such, I am unable to determine when these were taken. As such, I am not satisfied these two images are sufficient to cast doubt on the evidence provided by the operator. Section 7 of the BPA code of practice is no longer applicable. Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice 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. There is no requirement in the Single Code of Practice for operators to provide a copy of this contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. The operator has confirmed it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs and, as it has signage and ANPR cameras in place which would not be possible without the landowner’s permission. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am satisfied that the operator has the appropriate authority on this site. Section 21 of the BPA code of practice is no longer applicable. ANPR cameras are used to capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This ANPR data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and if a vehicle exceeds the maximum stay, a PCN is issued. As NAPR operated car parks are fully automated, a parking operator is not required to provide evidence of a vehicle parked as the ANPR evidence proves the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay allowed. POPLA accept evidence from both parties in good faith unless the opposite is proven. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the ANOR camera are inaccurate. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. Section 13 of the BPA code of practice no longer applies. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. Annex B states the grace period is 10 minutes. In this case, the vehicle remained on site for an additional 41 minutes therefore, both the grace period and maximum stay have been exceeded. The appellant has told us in their response that the charge is disproportionate and not commercially justified. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. The appellant states there is no proof of planning permission for signage and ANPR installations. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our remit extends solely to determining if the PCN has been issued correctly based on the evidence provided. It is not within POPLAs scope to comment on how a parking operator chooses to manage land it is responsible for. Therefore, should the appellant wish to pursue a dispute regarding this matter, they will need to contact the relevant authorities. On reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their initial grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not comment further. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.