Free Traffic Legal Advice

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking 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 appellant explains that the operator failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the period of parking is not specified. 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. I note that the appellant states that the period of parking was not included on the PCN. However, it clearly states ‘’Period of Parking: 00h 12m 41s’’. The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper does not state what tariff applied, the cost of parking for the relevant duration or any unpaid tariff or other charge due from the driver. However, PoFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(d) states, ‘’ specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—(i)specified in the notice; and (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));’’ In this case, the charge makes it clear what charges are due from the registered keeper of the vehicle as £100 or £60 within 14 days. The appellant says that there was no sign containing the terms and conditions was visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay and signage was inadequate and unclear. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with regarding signage. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the parking operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by the parking operator, I can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that the parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and any breaches would result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking operator has provided a site map and multiple images which show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice. Section 19.9 of the BPA Code of practice states, ‘’So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists’’. After reviewing the evidence from the operator, I can see there are several signs on site, including signs located next to the disabled bays, which clearly state that tariffs do apply to blue badge holders. Further signage was available on site for the appellant to review. On the terms and conditions signage, I can see that the text for disabled motorists is in the regular print along with other terms listed. I am satisfied that the signage is displayed in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, Section 19.9. The appellant states that the operator has not demonstrated any reasonable adjustments as required by the Equality Act 2010 as the driver is a disabled person and holds a blue badge. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 4.2 of the Code says that where the Blue Badge scheme is recognised, and a badge is to be displayed, signs stating the relevant obligations must make this clear, including where the badge is to be displayed within the vehicle. Along with any information if actions are needed from the driver to claim additional time. In this case, signage clearly states, ‘’These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders’’, indicating that the driver would not be exempt from the displayed terms. The PCN was issued on the date in question for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. I appreciate the appellant states that the driver is disabled and holds a blue badge, however, the ANPR system would not be aware of this. In any event, if a motorist is disabled or not, they would receive a PCN under these circumstances. Therefore, I do not consider that the PCN has been issued unfairly. The appellant says that no evidence to show landowner authority has been provided. 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 document provided shows that the operator has sufficient authority. The appellant states that the ANPR images does not show a breach, especially with consideration and grace periods taken into account. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, the driver exceeded the consideration period of 10 minutes. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. In this case, the driver would not be entitled to a grace period as no payment was made. Therefore, the driver did not park in accordance with the terms on site. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms of parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.