DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82464--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 24, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A third and final POPLA has come through where they identify me
as the driver, which is funny because their own evidence shows
that I appealed as RK and never identified myself as the driver.
Rebutted as per the last 2 and additionally rebutted their claim
of me as driver pointing out their own evidence shows that I am
RK.
Also noted that due to their failure to prove how I have been
IDd as the driver the second Ntk is not POFA compliant.
#Post#: 86634--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: August 21, 2025, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great news! All 3 POPLA appeals have come through as successful!
Many thanks to all who assisted!
They’re all the same assessor and say the same thing pretty
much. I’ll paste it below - should anyone wish to see the other
two, let me know.
--- Quote ---
>
> Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals
with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an
impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be
appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only
assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 6061785462 which was issued
to PCN number 238538/566743.
>
> I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with
sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s
claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
correctly.
>
> This PCN has been issued for not gaining at the appropriate
permit/authorisation. When parking on private land, the parking
contract is between the motorist and the operator through the
terms on its signs.
>
> The signage at this site states parking is for patrons only
and they must enter their vehicle registration into the terminal
at reception on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of
their stay.
>
> The parking operator has provided details from its system to
show the appellants vehicle was on site for 23 hours and 4
minutes and their vehicle registration was not listed as having
registered to obtain a permit.
>
> The appellant has said in their appeal that the entrance sign
was not visible as the driver entered the site. They have said
this is inadequate and incorrectly positioned facing a dead-end
road not oncoming traffic. The appellant has said that since the
sign is not visible to incoming drivers, no terms were
communicated, and therefore no contract could have been formed,
breaching the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> The appellant has acknowledged that the terms are displayed
deeper inside the car park, but said no opportunity was given to
consider or reject the contract before it was deemed to have
begun. After viewing the parking operator’s case file, the
appellant has said Parking Eye have not addressed or rebutted
this as their photo of the entrance sign is misleading, as it is
a close-up image that does not show whether the sign is visible
from a vehicle on approach.
>
> The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice
which set the standards its parking operators need to comply
with. Section 19.2 states parking operators need to have
entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto
private land, and Section 19.3 says parking operators need to
have signs that clearly set out the terms within the site.
Within their case file the parking operator has provided a site
map and images of the signage situated throughout the site,
including the site entrance. The site map shows the entrance
sign is positioned on the left side of the entrance as you
approach it.
>
> The appellant has provided a photo from dashcam footage taken
on 28/04/2025 and they say this shows that no signage was
visible at the point of entry and a photo of the same sign taken
on 07/05/25, saying this shows it is facing away from oncoming
traffic. The appellants images show the sign at the entrance,
which I am satisfied would be seen by a driver if approaching
the site from the right, as it is facing that direction.
However, if a motorist is approaching the site from the left,
the appellants evidence shows they would see the back of the
sign and if they were then to turn into the site, and the
driver’s seat is on the right, they may not see this sign.
Therefore, from the evidence provided, it appears entirely
possible that a motorist could enter the site from this
direction and not see the entrance sign. They then would not be
aware they were entering private land or that parking
restrictions applied and therefore would not be expected to look
for terms and conditions signage within the site.
>
> The image of the entrance sign the operator has provided has
been taken in close proximity and therefore does not show how
this appears to drivers when entering the site. Therefore in
this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued,
however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately
rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal.
>
> I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I
note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for
appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this
reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page