Free Traffic Legal Advice

Maybe there's a religious metaphor that can be used. 

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to obtain a permit during the notified period.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The signage on the site does not comply with Section 19.3 and 19.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The evidence provided by the operator has been tampered with. • The operator has not provided adequate evidence of their authority to issue parking charges at this location. In the comments the appellant has advised the following: • The confirmation of appointment is not a contract. • The images provided by the operator show different timestamps which indicates potential tampering. • The signage does not comply with Section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
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. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site for one hour and 11 minutes on the day in question. The data from the permit system shows that the vehicle had not been registered for a permit on the day of the incident. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing keeper liability. The appellant has advised that the signage on the site is not compliant. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the 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.The signage clearly advises that a permit is required to park and failing to obtain one is a breach of the terms. Further to the appellant’s statement that the operator’s evidence has been tampered with I am satisfied that the evidence the operator has provided is correct and has not been tampered with. The fact that there are different timestamps on some of the images does not invalidate the PCN in any way. 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. I have reviewed the signs and I am satisfied that the charge amount is clear as it has been highlighted to draw motorist’s attention to the amount. The appellant has questioned landowner authority .I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 7 of the British Parking Association(BPA) Code of Practice which states in 7 .1 “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement”. The operator has provided a confirmation of appointment document and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. After considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to obtain a permit during the notified period and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal.