Hi, it’s taken some time but the process at POPLA has completed and sadly the appeal has been unsuccessful.<br></br><br></br>It would be very much appreciated if someone could assist with the best course of action from here please?<br></br><br></br>Please see details below:<br></br><br></br>Assessor summary of operator case<br></br>The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for your vehicle was not authorised to park.<br></br><br></br>Assessor summary of your case<br></br>The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The terms of the site were unreasonable and because they could not possibly be met at the time of this event. • They point out the pub was closed and there was no alternative way or premises in which the validate the event. • The contract offered in the signage was null and void on this basis. • There has to be a clear offer and acceptance of the terms. • They quote the signage. • The signage does not mention if the car park is monitored on a 24-hour basis. • It does not mention what alternative arrangements exist when the pub is closed. • They appeal on the basis of ambiguous terms. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant largely reiterates their grounds of appeal. The above will be considered in my determination of this appeal.<br></br><br></br>Assessor supporting rational for decision<br></br>The appellant has been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The PCN has been issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) and no driver has been named. As such, I am considering the appellant’s grounds to assess the registered keeper’s liability for the PCN. 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. In this case the signs of the car park in question advise that this is a: “GUEST ONLY CAR PARK” and that guests need to register inside the premises for a parking permit. The appellant’s grounds confirm the motorist could not enter the premises this day, and therefore I am satisfied they could not validate their stay as a guest of the facility, nor could they be a guest of the facility at a time the premises were closed. While I appreciate the appellant has made a fundamental challenge to the application of the advertised parking contract and has stated the terms are ambiguous and not clearly communicated to be applicable at all times, I am fully satisfied the primary condition to be a guest of the facility is clear. A motorist may reasonably enter any such car park to review the terms but must then make a decision as to whether to remain on site, thus accepting the parking contract as written, or to reject it, by exiting within a reasonable period. In this regard, there is no requirement for any such signage to provide alternative ways to validate the stay if the premises it serves are closed or to advise if the area is monitored 24 hours day, as the way to comply with the contract is clear and the way to reject the contract is to not use this private land site. Therefore, I am not able to concur with the appellant’s grounds that the contract is null and void in this case. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Despite the appellant’s challenge to signage in this appeal, I am satisfied these requirements have been met. Further to this, the operator’s evidence shows the vehicle in question was seen to be on site for a period of 15 minutes in total at a relatively small car park. The appellant has not provided an account of how this time was used at any stage of appeal. Therefore, I am wholly reliant on an assessment of the length of time taken on site to consider if a parking contract was formed this day. 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 applicable consideration period is a minimum of 5 minutes. In the absence of an account of how the additional 10 minutes was used by the motorist in this case, I must conclude the minimum consideration period was applicable to this event, and that by remaining on site for 15 minutes in total, the motorist accepted the terms of the parking contract in place, of which the appellant’s own grounds have confirmed they could not meet at the time. The signage is clear that a PCN will be issued for a failure to register to park, and the appellant has been equally clear that the motorist could not meet this condition at the time of the event. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist remained on site without being able to register and therefore breached the terms and conditions. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
