I had the email notification last night. My appeal has been declined:
Assessor supporting rational for decision.
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state vehicles must be registered for a valid permit. The parking operator has provided a permit report which shows no record of permit against the vehicle in question. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). 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. The appellant was identified as the registered keeper and no driver details were provided, therefore I must assess if the Notice to Keeper is compliant with PoFA. Upon reviewing the PCN, I am satisfied that it was issued within the permitted timeframe and contains the relevant information outlined in PoFA. Please note that there is no requirement to name the creditor on the PCN as the operator is acting on behalf of the PCN. Having reviewed the PCN, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of PoFA and the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner. 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 states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The operator has provided a signed witness statement to demonstrate that it has landowner authorization. Although the Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without a valid permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
So, is there anything else I can do?
