Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • They advise they are the keeper and deny any liability or contractual agreement and there will be no admission to who was driving and has also quoted the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They have also quoted paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and said the PCN does not invite the keeper to pay the charge or name the driver. • They say the PCN does not specify the period of parking and just shows ANPR cameras recorded the entry and exit times and not parking times. • They state there is no contract capable of being formed as the signs say “3 hour max stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours” as the wording is prohibited and outside of store hours, parking is prohibited rather than offered on contractual terms. They say the PCN asserts that the maximum stay was 0 hours 0 minutes and is self-evidently incoherent and impossible to comply with an impossible term cannot form a valid contract. • They say there is a misleading barrier arrangement as the barrier was raised and if the store was closed, this was misleading conduct and failed to provide fair and transparent notice of any restriction. All of the above 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. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs state “…Strictly no parking outside of store hours…” The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images to demonstrate when the vehicle entered the site and how long it remained there for. • They advise they are the keeper and deny any liability or contractual agreement and there will be no admission to who was driving and has also quoted the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They have also quoted paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and said the PCN does not invite the keeper to pay the charge or name the driver. 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. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. • They say the PCN does not specify the period of parking and just shows ANPR cameras recorded the entry and exit times and not parking times. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. While the ANPR images do not show the period of parking, section 2.19 if The Code states that a parking event begins when a vehicle enters, and remains, on controlled land. • They state there is no contract capable of being formed as the signs say “3 hour max stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours” as the wording is prohibited and outside of store hours, parking is prohibited rather than offered on contractual terms. They say the PCN asserts that the maximum stay was 0 hours 0 minutes and is self-evidently incoherent and impossible to comply with an impossible term cannot form a valid contract. I have reviewed the signs and can see they state that there is a 3-hour maximum stay and no parking outside of store opening hours. As no parking is allowed, and the vehicle remained on site, the terms were broken. I am satisfied that there is a contract capable of being formed. • They say there is a misleading barrier arrangement as the barrier was raised and if the store was closed, this was misleading conduct and failed to provide fair and transparent notice of any restriction. On private land, barriers are not required to show if the site is open or closed as the terms visible advise motorists what is expected. POPLA’s role is to assess if the 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, as the vehicle remained on site when it was not authorised, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.
