So i have had my appeal rejected. See below.
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Natalie Matthews
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • They raised that the PCN doesn’t meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in relation to keeper liability. • The PCN refers to “failed to make a valid payment” and refers to a date of issue. • They raised the PCN doesn’t have the correct warning, “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given…”. • They raised landowner authority. • The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. • They raised Brennan v Premier Parking (2023). • They feel the PCN doesn’t refer to period of parking. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. and raised new grounds of appeal that they never raised in the grounds like signage, PCN amount, other vehicles in breach and the generic initial appeal response. The appellant included photographic evidence of their initial appeal response and two images of the PCN, in support of their appeal. The evidence has been included in my assessment.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage on site forms the basis of the contract. The signage in this car park states that the area is a no parking area at any time. Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included PCN and the initial appeal response which is noted but does not add value to the appeal. 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 issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. Section 7/8/9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. In this case I can see that PCN was issued within the relevant period. Therefore, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. Furthermore, the PCN doesn’t mention not paying for parking. The PCN reason is for parking in a no parking area. The warning the operator added in the motorist's comments about the 28 days is slightly different, but it is still acceptable as it has the same meaning and is acceptable and still meets POFA. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the code state parking operators must have written authority from the landowner before the PCN can be issued. I can see the operator included a copy of the landowner contract. They raised entry and exit or snap shot times are not the same a ‘period of parking’ and raised Brennan v Premier Parking (2023). POPLA do not accept civil court decisions as they don’t set legal precedent and only accept Supreme Court Rulings. Additionally, ‘period of parking’ wouldn't be considered in this case as the terms and conditions read that parking isn't permit on roads, footpaths or on yellow lines, however, the appellant's vehicle remained in a ‘no parking’ area for 8 minutes. It should be noted that the motorist comments section is a place to expand upon the original grounds given and not to be used as a platform to introduce new grounds that the operator has not had the opportunity to review. As such, the new grounds of appeal given within the motorist comments section have not been considered in this appeal response. Ultimately, the crux of this case is, regardless of who was driving the car on the date in question, they driver breached the terms and conditions, by parking in a no parking area for 8 minutes. The PCN met all aspects of POFA and the keep is responsible for the PCN as the driver hasn’t been named. Upon consideration of the evidence supplied, the driver was not permitted to park where they did and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.
