Free Traffic Legal Advice

The appellant is appealing on behalf of the registered keeper. I have received the PCN, and I am satisfied this meets the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevant sections raised in the British Parking Association code of practice therefore, I am considering the registered keeper’s liability for the PCN. 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 photos of the signs displayed on site. The signs state that there is a maximum stay of 3 hours. All vehicles must be parked within a marked bay. Failure to comply with the terms will result in the issue of a parking charge notice of £100. The appellant says there is no mention of the period of parking or the land in which the vehicle was parked on, on the PCN which fails to comply with the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act Section 9(2)(a) and (b). Upon review of the parking charge provided by the operator I can see the operator has provided both the period of parking, which in this case is 16:36:44 and the land in which the driver parked the vehicle on which was Bell Green Retail Park. As such I am satisfied the parking charge notice contains the information required by the PoFA. The signage fails to comply with the British Parking Association code of practice 2010. The appellant says from where the vehicle was parked, none of the signs can be seen. They say the sign on entry is impossible to read. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the BPA code of practice states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use” Having reviewed the signage within the case file, I am satisfied that the signs have met the requirements of section 19.2. this is because the operator has shown that there is an entrance sign displayed on entry to the car park, which the driver had the opportunity to see on entry to the car park. This sign advised them to read the further terms and conditions within the car park. Therefore, it was down to the driver to read the further terms and conditions within the car park itself. I note the appellant says the sign refers to a 2 hour maximum stay however upon review of the image provided by the appellant I can see the entrance sign refers to a 3 hour maximum stay. The entrance sign provided by the appellant also advises motorists to see further terms inside the car park. The appellant says there are no signs within the area to specify whether it is designed for motorcycles only, bikes only or both. The BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signage 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.” Paragraph 19.3 also explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the driver was afforded this opportunity. The appellant says the motorbike was parked on the paved area designed for bikes. In this case upon review of the signs it is clear that all vehicles must be parked within a marked bay. Whilst i note the signs do not specifically refer to motorcycles or bikes, there is no requirement for the signs to refer to them. I am satisfied it is clear that by parking on site, whether that be a car, van or motorcycles, all vehicles be parked in a marked bay. The operator has provided photos of the vehicle parked. This shows the vehicle was parked on a pedestrian paved area. There are no signs or markings to suggest this area is for motorbikes or bicycles. The appellant says no evidence has been provided to show the operator has the landowners permission to issue the PCN. The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 7.1 of the code confirms that if an operator does not own the land on which it is carrying out parking management, it must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. This must confirm the operator has the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that it is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner or agent requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice, the details of the land and that it has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, and on reviewing this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant has stated the operator has failed to comply with Section 2.4, 21.1 of the BPA code of practice. When there is relevant legislation and related guidance, this will define the overall standard of conduct for all AOS members. All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses. Examples of relevant law and guidance within this sector are: • contract law • tort of trespass • data protection law • consumer protection law • Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), including Schedule 4 (included as Appendix C to the Code) • DVLA Guidelines for Accredited Trade Associations • equalities law. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator directly. Having review both the appellants grounds of appeal and the comments raised, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met and the operator has issued the PCN correctly, as such the appeal is refused.