Just an update guys. POPLA have declined my appeal. This is what they have said……
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. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that motorists must be parked within a designated bay with a valid permit displayed, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. The parking operator has provided a copy of the templated permit motorists must display whilst on the site. I acknowledge the appellant has explained that they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and the identity of the driver is not admitted, and the parking operator has not provided proof of who was driving. They go onto say that the parking operator has failed to issue the Notice to Keeper as part of PoFA 2012, as no period of parking was specified. They go on to say that the parking operator’s notice images show the start timestamp as 01:53 and the last being 01:54 however, the duration of parking is not indicated. 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. Furthermore, the parking operator must issue a PCN to be received within the required timescale. Section 9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. The parking operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the Registered Keeper. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I can also see that PCN was issued within the relevant period, as the contravention took place on 8 August 2024 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on 12 August 2024. I do note that the Notice to Keeper also states the registered keeper will be responsible for the parking charge if the driver’s details are not provided within 28 days. As the appellant has not provided these details, I am satisfied the parking operator has successfully transferred liability onto the registered keeper and therefore, I will be considering their liability for the parking charge. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, the onsite parking attendant would have taken photographic images of the contravention and the operator would not have known how long the motorist was parked at the site in total. As the appellant has not stated what the motorist was doing at the site, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the terms or not. As such, these comments about the time stamped images have no bearing on my decision. Having considered the photographic images provided by the parking, the vehicle was parked on the site without a valid permit, matching the templated permit provided in the case file and therefore, the PCN has been issued. I acknowledge the appellant says that a consideration period should be considered to locate and understand the signage under the BPA code of practice. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of five minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. Section 13.4 of the code goes on to state that unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users or where parking is not allowed. In this case, as the motorist has stayed on the site without displaying a valid permit, they have already breached the parking terms. As I have already explained earlier in my assessment, the appellant has not explained why the motorist was on the site and therefore, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the signs during their stay. I note the appellant has challenged the signage on the site, stating that the signs are inadequate and do not comply, so no contract can be formed and fails the requirements of PoFA, including that the PCN fee is prominently shown, and the signage is not BPA compliant. They say that there is no entrance sign, the signs cannot be read whilst driving and all the other information on the signs is in small text, apart from the No Unauthorised Parking term. I also note the appellant sys that the signage is inadequate under low light conditions, as the contravention took place early morning, when it was dark. The appellant has also stated that the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the exact location within the business park and numerous areas are un-signposted. They go on to say that the relevant land must be specified under Schedule 4 of PoFA. As part of their extensive comments, the appellant has highlighted the Denning LJ’s "red hand rule" as the £100 PCN is unreasonable and is not prominently displayed for the motorists’ attention, the signage images provided are false Section 19.2 of the code of practice states that entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs stating the full terms and conditions. The images and site map show that there are multiple signs displayed across the car park, including a signs at the entrance point to the site, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, which makes them easy to read and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PCN charge can be read. Appendix B of the code of practice 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. In this case, I can see that the signs are not displayed on lighting poles from the images provided however, there appears to be overhead lighting provided which makes it clear for the signs to be visible and the parking terms clear to see. 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. There are minimum standards set out in Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Although I appreciate the appellant says that the Notice to Keeper does not specifically state where the contravention took place and numerous areas are un-signposted, the site map also shows me the boundaries of the site managed by the parking operator, with one entry and exit point. Furthermore, I can see from the image on page 6 of the case summary that a sign is displayed with close proximity to where the vehicle was parked. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied the motorist was parked within the boundaries of the parking operator’s site and the PCN has correctly captured where the breach took place. Whilst I note the appellant’s extensive comments, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. I am satisfied the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the terms. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has referred to the Red Hand Rule this has no bearing on my decision. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to reflect any actual loss incurred by a parking operator or landowner. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. In their further comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant says that the document provided for the landowner does not demonstrate that the parking operator has the legal standing to issue and pursue parking charges so the contract is insufficient. Section 7.1 of the Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. The parking operator has provided two documents, the site map which is signed and dated by the and landowner and a Terms and Conditions document, outlining the agreement that is place. It is clear from these documents that the definition of the land in question has been established. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied that the contract provided meets the requirements of the code of practice. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their listed of grounds of appeal in extensive detail, including that the parking operator has not appropriately rebutted the grounds they have raised. Whilst I note these comments, I have already addressed these grounds and therefore, these comments do not invalidate the issue of the parking charge. POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking operator has issued the charge 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 parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.