Lost this one, lads. Don't really feel like spending more time on this, even if it would have a decent chance in court.
Just a bit disappointed about POPLA's decision, given how identical it was that was to another case. Doesn't feel very fair.
Regardless, really appreciate the time you all took to look into this for me.
-----------------------
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • They could not drop off their daughter outside the Flip Out venue, so they dropped her off at the end of Matisse Road. • They visited McDonalds and the nearby Prince Regent Road until it was time to collect their daughter however, she was not where they agreed to meet and eventually received a phone call to say that their daughter was running late. • The onsite warden took photographs of the vehicle after the phone call, and their daughter returned to the vehicle around two minutes after the images were taken. They left the site at this point. • They believed they were on a public highway and there were no markings to indicate they were on private land. • The vehicle brake lights were on, as can be seen in the contravention photographs and they did not cause obstruction whilst on the site. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail, saying that the roadway is Matisse Road and not Holloway Street and the site map supplied the parking operator has the incorrect roadway name, with the appellant’s vehicle incorrectly marked on this site map. The appellant has also reiterated that no images have been provided to show road markings to indicate where the public highway ends and where the private land begins. The appellant comments further that they were only on the site for two minutes, which is less than the five-minute guideline for motorists to give due consideration of their situation. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • A screenshot of their phone log to show calls with their daughter. • A screenshot of the Royal Mail website. • Two screenshots of their detailed movements on the date in question. • A photograph of the vehicle, showing the brake lights are on. • A photograph of the front of the vehicle on the site. • A screenshot of the google map image showing Matisse Road.
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 parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that the site is private land and no parking is permitted. The signs also state that a £100 PCN will be issued to any motorist who breaches the terms and conditions. Having considered the photographic images provided by the parking operator, the vehicle stayed on a site where parking was not permitted and therefore, the PCN has been issued. As part of their comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has highlighted that they were on the site for less than the five-minute consideration period, which the parking operator’s images support. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a code of practice, which sets the standards for its parking operators. The appellant is correct that 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 say 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. I have considered the appellant’s photographs of the vehicle and whilst I do not dispute they were picking up their daughter, as they have parked on a site where parking is not permitted, a consideration period does not apply. I acknowledge the appellant says that there were no road markings to indicate parking was not permitted. In their comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has raised that they were at Matisse Road and not Holloway Street, and the site map does not accurately show where they were parked. The British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 19.1 of the Code of Practice states that signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. 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 that the site is private land, where parking is not permitted and the PCN fee is prominently displayed. The site map shows me that 12 signs are displayed across the car park, 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 I have reviewed the appellant’s screenshots and whilst I note they believe they were parked elsewhere, the parking operator’s images show me three signs are displayed within close proximity to where the vehicle was parked, including one directly next to the vehicle. I can also see from the parking operator images and site map that the appellant was parked on the pedestrian crossing at the site. As such, it is clear the appellant was parked on the parking operator’s land. Whilst I appreciate there are no road markings to indicate parking is not permitted, there is no requirement for the landowner or the parking operator to apply road markings on a car park. I would also like to highlight that the vehicle was parked on top of a zebra crossing, which is to be used by pedestrians only. 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. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s extensive comments, I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment. 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.
