POPLA appeal results are in - unsuccessful (pasted below). I guess I now sit tight and wait for Minster Baywatch to start chasing?
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Paul Garrity
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle was not authorised to use the car park.
Assessor summary of your case
Assessor summary of appellant case The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below. • A valid ticket was purchased from Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and displayed in the vehicle window. • Minster Baywatch has not demonstrated it is authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby Wilson. • The Notice to Keeper does not fully comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. On reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided an image of the parking ticket a bank statement photo of signage a copy of the notice to hire company and the operator’s response to their appeal. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 displayed on the signs located within the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these. The Minster Baywatch signs on this site confirm all vehicles must either have a valid pay and stay session valid pay by phone session or be included on the authorised suer list and failure to comply will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. I note the Bransby Wilson signage on this site provided by the appellant confirms a parking charge will be issued by the designated enforcement company to any unauthorised vehicles remaining on the car park and failing to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for two hours and eight minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online payment report which confirms no payment was made against the full and correct vehicle registration number. POPLA is an evidence-based service, and I can only base my decision on the evidence presented at the time of the appeal. The appellant has not admitted to being the driver. I will therefore be considering their responsibility as keeper of the vehicle. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant has provided an image of the parking ticket and a bank statement confirming when making payment, only one character of the vehicle registration was entered, E. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The Appeals Charter is a statement within the code on how certain circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Such as if a driver has paid the tariff or registered their vehicle but they have swapped characters, have digits missing or have entered the wrong registration completely. On reviewing the appellants initial appeal to the operator, the appellant did not advise the driver was a legitimate user of the car park or that a payment was made nor did they provide evidence of the parking ticket. Therefore, as no appropriate evidence was provided at the first appeal stage, the operator was not required to meet the requirement of F.3 of the code. While it is not disputed that a payment was made, by failing to enter the full correct vehicle registration, this ticket is not valid for the vehicle to remain on site. The operator has provided a copy of the contract with the landowner, Bransby Wilson. This contract confirms that Minster Baywatch has been appointed by Bransby Wilson to enforce paring on this site on its behalf. This is confirmed on the Bransby Wilson signage that enforcement is carried out by the designated enforcement company. 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 On reviewing this contract and as the appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am satisfied that Minster Baywatch has been appointed by Bransby Wilson to enforce parking on this site. A valid ticket was purchased from Bransby Wilson Paring Solutions and displayed in the vehicle window. The Notice to Keeper was issued within the relevant period and clearly advises if the keeper was not the driver, they should provide the operator the full name of the driver and full address where a notice can be service and to pass the notice onto them. The notice also advises that if the charge has not been paid and the operator does not know the name and current address of the driver, it has the right to recover any unpaid charge from the registered keeper. Within its case file, the operator also provided clear and larger copies of the images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. These images clearly show the time and date stamped are included directly on these images. Therefore, while it is noted the actual images on the notice are smaller, the times provided match the time stamps on the larger images. As such, I am satisfied that the notice fully meets the requirements of POFA. On reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their initial grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not comment further. The appellant has also provided the operators response to their appeal. As I have reviewed this within the case file, I will not comment further. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused
