Hi all. Not surprisingly POPLA found in favour of MET Parking Services. POPLA completely ignored my point that the photos MET provided at night time are of a completely different car park and NOT the one I parked in. They also say my photos are not a true representation of the signage at the site. They are literally photos of what's there so how they can't be a true representation is anyone's guess. I'll post POPlA's response below.
I've now received this letter. Should I respond or just ignore for now?
POPLA's response:
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. Both the appellant and the operator have provided photographs of the signage on site. In this car park, the terms and conditions state that the maximum stay time is one and a half hours. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked for one hour and 46 minutes. The appellant has raised three main grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately. • The appellant has stated that the keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable for the PCN as the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). 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. Having reviewed the notice to keeper, I am satisfied that it has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. While the appellant has made reference to section 8.1.2(e) of the Privete Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, this does not relate to PoFA 2012 and does not affect the operator’s ability to transfer liability. It is important to explain that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly. Should the appellant be unhappy with the wording of the appeals process, then they would need to raise this with the parking operator directly. • The appellant has stated that a contract was not formed between the driver and the operator due to non-compliant signage. In support of this, the appellant has provided photographs of the signage and the site. The appellant has also made reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. Regarding signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice states that parking operators needs to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking. I understand that the appellant has made reference to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, but parking operators have until December 2026 to implement the requirements for signage. As such, I will be assessing whether the signage complies with the applicable British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In this case, both the appellant and the operator have provided photographs of the signage on site. Section 19.3 of the BPA Code states that signs must be easy to see, read and understand. On the face of the evidence, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions, along with the consequences of failing to comply with them, are clearly set out. Regarding entrance signage, section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking operators must have entrance signs to advise motorists that they are entering into private land and that there are terms and conditions that they must be aware of. Again, both the appellant and the operator have provided images of the entrance signage and demonstrated its location. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has complied with the requirements regarding entrance signage. While the appellant appears to be indicating that the entrance sign cannot be seen on approach, I can see it within their image; the image was simply taken from a distance so it cannot be read. I further note that the appellant has commented that the signage is not where the operator claims it to be, but the evidence suggests that it is. The operator has also provided further images of the signage, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution throughout the site. I understand that the appellant has commented on every single sign, but in the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, I am satisfied that there is sufficient signage throughout all areas of the site to advise of the parking conditions. I understand that the appellant has provided two images of several parking spaces, but I do not consider this to be an accurate representation of how the signage at the site looks. Regarding signage in the dark, Appendix B states that signs must be visible at all times. Within its evidence file, the operator has provided images of the signage at the night time, which demonstrate that they are well-illuminated during the night time. While the appellant has made reference to signage within disabled bays, by their own admission the motorist did not park within a disabled bay. As a result, I do not consider it necessary to address the adequacy of the signage within the disabled bays. Overall, in light of the evidence, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with the opportunity to review the terms before deciding whether to remain on site. As such, a parking contract was formed. • The appellant has stated that the operator has a lack of standing/authority from the landowner. Section 14.1 of the applicable Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 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 response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Having reviewed this and taking into consideration the fact that there are many signs at the site, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. I understand that the appellant is unhappy with the contract provided, but they have not provided any evidence which would dispute the validity of the contract in place. For the avoidance of doubt, POPLA’s role is solely to assess the validity of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied that the motorist exceeded the maximum stay time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
