The POPLA appeal assessment is in -- it's been successful! So no need to face for the DCB Legal farce.
For reference, I've copied in full the assessor's statement below. Much of the first bit repeats the facts that I had given in my appeal, but the bold/red bit at the bottom (NB. this formatting is mine) is the key reasoning behind the conclusion.
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. The parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant because the P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking. The appellant quotes the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (The Code) Section 5.1(a) and says the Consideration Period was inadequate for the circumstances. They say in this case, a parent and child space was desired and when a family was seen returning to their car to depart, the driver waited to park in this space as there was a baby in the car. They say due to the busyness of the car park, and parking in a space appropriate to needs, the driver parked the car just before 12:20, and a ticket was immediately purchased from the machine. They say at this point, the Consideration Period ended and the parking period began. The also point out that the purchased ticket stated clearly in a large bold font that it was valid until "15:20." The appeal reasons have led me to consider The Code which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, Annex B provides a consideration period of 5 minutes. Whilst I acknowledge that Section 5.1 says the operator should take into account the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs and the impact of the volume of traffic within the controlled land. I wish to point out that the parking period is defined in Section 2.24 of the Code as the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land, which includes the consideration period. Additionally, Annex B makes it clear that the Consideration period is not a free period of parking. However, the appellant has explained that they believed the parking period commenced at the time of payment and whilst the signage refers to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras it does not explain that the parking period is calculated from the time they enter and exit the site. Therefore, I consider that it is reasonable that the appellant believed that their parking time began at 12:20, at the time they paid for their parking and that the period prior to this was a consideration period. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area. In accordance with Annex B the grace period at this site is 10 minutes. The appellant has exited the site at 15:28 which was 3 hours 8 minutes after paying for their stay, therefore I consider the appellant left the site within the grace period and complied with the parking contract they entered. As I have determined the first 14-minutes of the time spent on site was a consideration period, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly when factoring this in to my decision. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
Thank you
b789 for all your support in guiding me through this process.
