The IAS made a ruling on my appeal and as expected they dismissed my appeal and upheld each of the parking charges.
See below the detailed response for one of them.
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver not paying for the duration of their stay, within five minutes of arriving, will be issued with the parking charge notice.
The Appellant claims that they paid to park and provides evidence to support the claims. The Operator accepts this but shows the payment was delayed. The Appellant acknowledges this was delayed and gives an explanation. However, there is no evidence for this. As explained above, at this stage, the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy me the charge is unlawful. In the absence of any evidence, I am not satisfied.
The explanation is that they were advised by the "onsite attendants" that they may pay on leaving the site. There are no details as to whom they spoke, what their role was, and when the advice was given. For example they have been attending the site for three years. The terms may have changed more than once in that time. Although additional notice should be given for a change of terms, it is incumbent on the driver to check the terms each time they park.
This is an ANPR car park, so it will not be 'manned' in the traditional sense. However, the Operator does confirm attendants are sometimes on site. If the advice came from a attendant and was near in time this would be advice the Appellant could expect to rely on.
The attendant would be the agent of the Operator and able to vary the contract, but there is no evidence for this, and it would be unusual. Attendants are trained to refer drivers to the signs for advice. This is the role of the sign, and the attendant is there to enforce. This ensures all receive the same advice. There is also no evidence of payments being made in this way for three years. Even if I accept this, I revert to the earlier point that the terms of the car park can change and the driver must check for this, although there must also be clear notice of the change.
The signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms, the driver agrees to them. There is no evidence the notice was insufficient. In consideration for parking they agree to pay the tariff within five minutes or pay the charge. In this way they have entered into a contract with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised terms.
The only way to vary the contract is by agreement between the parties. Any advice or permission given by another, not a party to the contract, is irrelevant. If the Appellant received erroneous advice from another, they have my sympathy, but this is an issue between the Appellant and their advisor and has no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge.
The driver is entitled to a reasonable time to read the terms and comply with the requirements. It would clearly be unfair to issue a charge on arrival before the driver had a chance to pay. However, this must be done immediately. It is not for the driver to decide when they will read the signs and pay.
Here the Operator has made it a term of the contract that payment must be made within five minutes. I have seen nothing to show this is unreasonable and that further time should be allowed. If it became apparent to the driver that they may not be able to comply within the required time, I am satisfied it was made clear they ought to leave; otherwise by remaining they would agree to pay the charge.
I appreciate the Appellant has paid for the time they used, and they have my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has this discretion, but they are unlikely to exercise it in the Appellant's favour, in the absence of evidence to support the claim.
The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle leaving the land they manage, five hours and twenty minutes after it arrived, and without a payment until five minutes before leaving. The appeal is dismissed.