I finally got a decision on my appeal! Success!! Thank you to all that were involved and helped me, some really good advice on this forum. For interest, I'll post the assessor summary and comments below.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal which have been condensed for the purpose of my report: • The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) – there is no keeper liability. They say close analysis shows that the notice is not fully compliant and must be absolute for keeper liability to comply. They say the operator has failed to meet Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (e) (i) as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay, it does not meet (f) as there is no timeline. They say the wording of the PCN is incorrect and misleading as saying that £100 must be made within 28 days of the date issued is incorrect and there are two conflicting payment deadlines leading motorists to believe payment is required earlier than expected and legally required. They say 9 (2) (b) has not been met as the circumstances are not described. They say that 9 (2) (f) has not been met. They say the operator has failed to identify he creditor and Britania Parking is not a legal entity and does not appear on Companies House. Therefore, not meeting 9 (2) (f). They say 9 (4) has not been met as there has been no demonstration that the keeper was posted and this also does not meet the Private Parking Single Code of Practice in section 8.2 (e) note 2. • No valid contract formed – inadequate and unclear signage. They say the signs are not sufficient, displayed in prominent and visible locations, containing clear and legible wording or communicating the requirement to validate in 10 minutes. They say there must be a site map, photos of the signs from a driver’s perspective at the entry and kiosk and a sign containing the 10 minute requirement and the £100 charge. • They mention the Supreme Court Case heard between Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis 2015. They mention the 10 minute requirement being a core contractual condition and does not meet 7.2.3 of the code. They say the charge was not prominent and was unclear, failing to be distinguishable from the rest of the text. • The operator is put to strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner. It must have a current, valid contract with the landowner ‘Botley – The Dolphin’, confirms it can take action in its own name and the contract covers the required period. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail. The appellant states the landowner document is so heavily redacted it is impossible to confirm whether the contract is valid, PoFA requirements have not been met, the signs do not contain the 10 minute requirement and the operator has not responded to their concerns.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the vehicle parked without a valid payment. The appellant questions whether operator is properly authorised by the landowner and whether it holds a valid contract to enforce PCNs. They say the operator is put to strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner. It must have a current, valid contract with the landowner ‘Botley – The Dolphin’, confirms it can take action in its own name and the contract covers the required period. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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 operator has provided POPLA with a copy of contract, however this evidence does not confirm that there is an agreement with the landowner as the name and address of the landowner is fully redacted. Whilst it confirms the address, in the absence of the landowner’s name and address, I cannot conclude that the operator had a valid contract with the owner of this land on the date of the event. It is within the operator’s gift to provide POPLA with evidence to fully rebut the appellant’s grounds raised and in this instance, I am not satisfied the copy of the contract does rebut their grounds. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the operator failed to provide a full copy of a compliant agreement with the landowner , I am not satisfied that the operator has issued this PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
