Result. Thanks so much for your input
Successful
Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist exceeded the 45-minute maximum stay time.
Assessor summary of your case
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • The notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The signage is inadequate. • They would like to see whether the operator has the landowner’s permission to issue parking charge notices on the land. Specifically, they would like to see the contract. • They would like to see a copy of the operator’s KADOE contract. • It is a clear abuse of the system. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided a photograph of spar and a photograph of the entrance signage. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal with my reasoning below: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist parked in excess of the 45-minute maximum stay time. Within their appeal, the appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage at the site. They have provided a photograph of the entrance sign and questioned how the motorist was supposed to read it from the moving vehicle. The appellant has also provided a photograph to demonstrate where they parked, and explained that the only signs are located on the edges of the building. Regarding signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice states that parking operators needs to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking. Section 19.3 specifically states that signs must be easy to see, read and understand. In response to the appellant’s appeal, the operator has provided photographs of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution throughout. Having reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, I can see that there aren’t any signs located where the appellant claims to have parked, but on the sides of the building away from the central spaces. While I accept that the motorist would need to have passed the entrance sign, this is located on a bend and I do not consider it reasonable to expect a motorist to read this whilst trying to navigate a bend. Further, I can see that the site operates a one-way system, and although I accept that other signs would have been visible on the exit road, the parking contract is formed on entry to the site.
Overall, I cannot be satisfied that the operator has demonstrated that the motorist would have been presented with a reasonable opportunity to review the terms and conditions before deciding whether to park. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was correctly issued. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
