Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: sbarclay19 on February 28, 2024, 02:11:37 pm

Thanks @DWMB2 - have pinged it in. If it's a tad over 14 days (due to chronic delay in post here - Royal Mail often only deliver once a week) is it hopeless?

It would be useful to know what exactly you have pinged in.

Is what hopeless? It is their notice that needs to reach you within 14 days in order to hold you liable as the keeper, not your appeal.

The charge was issued because your vehicle was parked in enforcement zone in strictly no parking at any time area, which is a
direct contravention of the advertised on the signage terms and conditions of parking.

This is further supported by the warden’s photographic evidence, showing that the vehicle has been observed not being parked
under the terms of the car park, where there were visible notices on display, indicating that there is no parking in the area. The
terms were adequately brought to your attention and if you decide to remain on site and do not review the full terms and
conditions of parking, we cannot be held responsible for a breach of the parking contract.

In response to your dispute about the location where you parked at the time of the contravention, I submit that the car park
belongs to a private landowner with a business address Holloway Street, Hounslow, TW3 1AA. Therefore, by parking on this
particular piece of land, you became subject to the parking restrictions stipulated on the signage displayed prominently within
the site. Provided is also evidence of a sitemap confirming our jurisdiction - the area we monitor is highlighted in red. The
warden’s photos show that your vehicle is parked off the side of the public road, which demonstrates that it is parked on the
land that we manage. This is also demonstrated by the signs in sight of your vehicle. The photographs show that you were
parked next to one of these signs, and therefore, you were adequately informed that this was private land. The you were made
aware of the applicable terms, and therefore, if you decide to remain on site and do not review the full terms and conditions of
parking, the operator cannot be held responsible for a breach of the parking contract.

Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of
Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00.

Please be informed that there is no requirement for a parking operator to issue a parking charge on the day in question, and
therefore, it is the operator's decision if they wish to issue a Notice to Driver or a Notice to Keeper. Notice to Keeper issued via
post without a Notice to Driver having previously being affixed to a vehicle should be issued in the period of 14 days beginning
with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9(2)(f) "warn the keeper that if, after the period of
28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified
under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to
recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid." I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper correctly conveys
this information. It states the keeper has 'If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details', which is the
equivalent of '28 days beginning the day after the that on which the notice is given'. As the evidence does not indicate that you,
the keeper, provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver, you therefore, assume liability for the charge, and under the POFA Act 2012, Schedule 4, we are pursuing you for the unpaid parking charge and remain compliant with
legislation and codes of practice whilst doing so.

Further evidence demonstrates that the Notice to Keeper contains two images showing the vehicle being parked on site. The
PCN does not need to specifically state the times of parking the PCN relate to as long as it is clear from the online photographic
evidence, which I am satisfied it is.

For the reasons noted above, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse your appeal.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions of the site.

To avoid incurring further administration cost, please arrange your remittance of £60 within 14 days from the date above (we
reset the clock). Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100.00 if you pay within 28 days from
the date above and to £160 once we pass the details of your case to debt Recovery Company.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. You can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeal
Service by completing appeal form online on http://www.popla.co.uk within 28 days.
By law, we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that
would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute
resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

You now have a number of options;
1. Pay the Parking Charge at the price of £60.00 within 14 days.
2. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies due via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with
Court action against you.
3. If you disagree with the appeal decision you can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeal Service by completing
appeal form online on http://www.popla.co.uk within 28 days.
4. You can pay or appeal – you cannot do both.
Please, note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £60.00, and
should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00.
Please see further information related to your parking ticket on our website: www.paypps.co.uk

Private Parking Solution (London) Ltd.  Matisse Road / Holloway Street Hounslow.

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

• They say they were dropping their daughter off at a party on the day of the breach.
• They say their daughter has a disability which limits their mobility and as such, they parked as close to ‘Flip Out’ as possible.
• They say they stopped on Matisse Road to drop off their daughter and wife and waited for less than 5 minutes for their wife to return before leaving.
• They say they didn’t realise they were on private land and saw no signs.
• They say no contract can be formed as no parking or waiting is permitted.
• They say the parking operator has not complied with 13.1 of the BPA Code of Pracitce.
• They say they did not stop on Holloway Road, but Matisse Road, which is not private land.
• They say they stopped forwards of the sign and could not see it as it was too small.
• They add that Matisse Road is a public highway and they did not stop on the operators land.
• They say the signs are too small to be read whilst driving and do not make the boundaries clear as it’s assumed they refer to the parking bays which they did not use.

The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal:

• Images of the site, the route to the sign and signs on site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning.

I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and appreciate they only stopped to drop off their daughter at a party. I acknowledge the images provided to demonstrate their route to the site, the area they stopped and the land in question. I note the appellant parked largely on the road, but partially on the white lines.

I also note the appellant parked next to signs but was unaware of any terms as they claim they didn’t see any, but has commented to advise that the signs are too small upon review of the evidence, the boundaries aren’t clear and what area the signs relate too.

As such, I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signs throughout the site, a site map showing the controlled areas and also the location of the signs. According to the site map the appellant stopped on Holloway Road, not Matisse Road. The appellants evidence shows the entrance to Matisse Road, but I must conclude that they stopped on Holloway Road.

Whilst the road is public land, the land to the side of it is not. The operators site map shows the area they control which includes the white lines, but only part of the white lines. I must agree with the appellant that the signs do not make the boundaries clear. One would assume that the signs refer to the parking bays and not the road or white lines. I accept that there are signs in place which should have been reviewed by the appellant, but the operators site map does not show the area they parked is monitored by them.

As stated above, the operator monitors the side of the road including the white lines, but not all the white lines. It’s down to the operator to demonstrate that the appellant breached the terms and conditions and whilst I accept they stopped partially on the white lines, I cannot conclude that the signs are clear enough to make motorists aware that the white lines are part of the relevant land or that the white lined area the appellant stopped is monitored by the parking operator.

As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

Assessor verdict:

By parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the land. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant codes of practice or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly.

In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for parking in No Parking area. In this case the appellant has stated that there is no contract as the signage is forbidding in nature and a motorist cannot contract to do something that is forbidding. Having viewed the available evidence I have concluded that there is no contract as there is nothing on offer to the motorist.

PCNs can arise if a motorist breaks the parking conditions or for trespass. In a case of parking somewhere the motorist is not entitled to park comes under trespass. However, the operator is not pursuing the motorist for trespass and is pursuing for breach of terms and conditions as set out on the PCN.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Based on the above, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I must allow the appeal.