The POPLA Appeal was rejected by email. Details Below
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: xx xx
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to overstaying the maximum period allowed.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal.
• The parking operator’s Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet all of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements, so the keeper cannot be held liable. Partial compliance is not enough, there will be no admission who was driving, and no interference or assumptions can be drawn, the parking operator has replied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
• The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, not pursued under a poor interpretation of the law of agency, the NTK in question can only hold the driver liable.
• The parking operator has no realistic prospect of success in pursuing the charge or the registered keeper in County Court, and the PCN should therefore be cancelled. A judge would be likely to dismiss the case as an abuse of process.
• The signage at the site states it is for customers only, for providing an offer of parking under the terms, it is not proven by the parking operator that the registered keeper was a customer of the Peel Centre, if the registered keeper was not a customer, no contract with the parking operator can be formed.
• If no contract was formed, the parking operator can only have a potential position of trespass; however, the parking operator has no claim this invoice due to two reasons, they have not authority to pursue the invoice in its own name unless it has the specific landholder rights to do so, they would like the parking operator to produce evidence of this right, at court if need be.
• There was no loss to either the parking operator or landowner, where the parking operator may seek damages from the registered keeper.
• The signage inadequate, they dispute it is prominently displayed for drivers to read and understand the parking terms, compared to the large wording regarding maximum stay three hours.
• The meaning on the term customer, is not defined or made clear on the signage and is objectively verifiable.
• They doubt the full parking terms and conditions were properly visible and brought to the attention of the drivers. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal.
The parking operator’s signage at the site states: “WELCOME TO THE PEEL CENTRE CUSTOMERS ONLY…FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…MAXIMUM STAY 3 HOURS…”. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for three hours 26 minutes, exceeding the allowable time by 26 minutes.
I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper and is [RK Name]’s liability for the PCN I will be considering as the keeper of the vehicle.
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. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice.
This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms.
Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, such as those mentioned above. The parking operator has provided a series of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. As the appellant has failed to provide any photos of the site for consideration I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied.
Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions.
It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for three hours 26 minutes. As the appellant has failed to provide any photos of the site for consideration, I must accept the evidence to be a true reflection of the site. As the car park has a maximum allowed time of three hours, which is applicable to all motorists, it falls upon the motorist to make reasonable accommodations and depart from the premises before surpassing the allotted time.
The signage at the site is clear that exceeding the time limit, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By exceeding the time limit, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded the allowable time at the site 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. Although the appellant has commented on the parking operator's evidence, I have not identified any details that significantly affect my evaluation of the PCN. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
END OF POPLA RESPONSE
------------------------------------
Appreciate your support for the next steps
KR
