Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA appeal has come back unsuccessful. What's the best steps to take next?

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the motorist parking without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authorisation in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. - The appellant states the signage is not clear or legible due to its height with reference to the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states it does not meet the requirements of the red hand rule established in J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw 1956. - The appellant states the driver was not afforded the grace period. - The appellant states there is no financial loss to the landowner and the charge is disproportionate, nor is it a genuine pre-estimate of loss. - The appellant states the operator did not provide clear instructions on how to submit a complaint. The appellant provided a copy of the signage using the red hand method.

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. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state maximum stay 2 hours... Monday - Saturday 05:00 to 20:30 hours...Authorised vehicles only outside the above times. The evidence shows the vehicle entered on Tuesday 13th August 2024 at 01:15 - 01:29 and the vehicle was not authorized to park on site. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. 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. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I can confirm that it was issued within the relevant timeframe and contains the relevant information. Therefore, the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authorisation in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 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 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. The operator has provided a contract with the landowner; therefore, I am satisfied that it has authorization to enforce charges on the land as there is no evidence to dispute this. - The appellant states the signage is not clear or legible due to its height with reference to the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states it does not meet the requirements of the red hand rule established in J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw 1956. 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. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it and not rely on the staff or business in question to provide them with this information as they are not obligated to do so. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the driver was afforded this opportunity. The operator’s evidence shows there is an entrance sign which clearly states the permitted hours for parking and advises the site is private land. The site map and image show the site is well signposted and provides the terms clearly. Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. The operator’s site images show the site is well lit at night and the signage is visible. I note the appellant has quoted J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw 1956 and provided an image to support this, but this does not apply in this case. POPLA refers to the Code of Practice and PoFA to measure adequate notice. 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. In this case, the charge amount is written in bold writing and clearly stands out when it is being read. - The appellant states the driver was not afforded the grace period. The vehicle was not permitted to be on site and therefore the grace period does not apply. - The appellant states there is no financial loss to the landowner and the charge is disproportionate, nor is it a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is disproportionate or does not reflect the loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. 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 itself. 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 legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. - The appellant states the operator did not provide clear instructions on how to submit a complaint. POPLA’s sole role is to assess if the terms of the site were breached and if the charge was issued correctly. It is not within POPLA’s remit to comment on the operator’s internal processes or conduct. To make a complaint, the appellant can visit the operator’s website for their complaints policy. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without authorization 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.

Hi b789,

Yes, if you could put something together that would be great. Happy to put a complaint to POPLA.

Thanks