DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94853--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: b789
Date: October 20, 2025, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A bit thin on the operators standing to operte' I usually use
the following:
--- Quote ---
> Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14
of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets
out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before
any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
--- End Quote ---
And this for signs, although you can add to it your points:
--- Quote ---
> Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that
was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of
the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site
plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of
the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage
was visible, legible, and compliant with the BPA Code of
Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged
contravention, including requirements relating to font size,
positioning, and the communication of key terms.
--- End Quote ---
And the following points for good measure:
--- Quote ---
> Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 95063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: bigred247
Date: October 21, 2025, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] thank you for the advice :)
This is the latest draft. Here are the summary of the changes:
Feedback #1 (No Proof of Valid Authority) → Replaced
Ground 4
Feedback #2 (signage proof) → Added to Ground 2
Feedback #3 & #4 (NtK compliance) → Created NEW Ground 5
--- Quote ---
>
> As registered keeper, I challenge this PCN on the following
grounds:
>
> Ground 1: No Charges Displayed at Entrance
> Photographic evidence (Exhibits A-D) proves:
>
> - Entrance shows "ASDA Welcome" with no charges (Exhibit B)
> - Street sign shows ASDA branding, no tariff (Exhibit A)
> - Charges only visible inside car park after entry (Exhibits
C-D)
>
> This violates BPA Code Section 19.3 requiring signs to "take
into account the expected speed and direction of travel of
vehicles approaching the entrance." The operator actively
invited drivers to enter while concealing a complex charging
structure (different rates by duration, Saturday rates, Sunday
free, Asda discounts).
>
> Drivers cannot be expected to research website tariffs before
entering - adequate notice must be given at the site. By the
time charges are visible inside, the driver has already
committed to entering and would be in "breach" if attempting to
leave.
>
> No valid contract formed.
>
> Ground 2: Operator Cannot Prove Actual Notice
> Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] requires operators prove the
driver actually saw and understood terms. ParkingEye v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67 upheld £85 only because of 20 large, prominent
noticeboards throughout the site with charges in "largest font
size."
>
> Mercury fails this standard:
>
> - no charges at entrance decision point;
> - signs inside car park too late.
>
> I put the operator to strict proof of:
>
> - Clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on
16th August 2025, at the exact location of the alleged
contravention
> - A detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and
legible images of the signs in situ
> - Evidence that signage was visible, legible, and compliant
with the BPA Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the
alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font
size, positioning, and the communication of key terms
> - Charges were visible at entrance before entry commitment
> - Signage met the Beavis standard of being "reasonably large,
prominent and legible"
> - Photographic evidence showing entrance signage configuration
on 16th August 2025
>
>
> Ground 3: PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 Not Satisfied
> Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 5
requires "the driver must have been given adequate notice of the
parking charges" - a mandatory condition. Paragraph 4(2): keeper
liability "applies only if conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and
12 are met."
> Exhibits A-D prove Paragraph 5 not satisfied. Former POPLA
Lead Adjudicator: "If not complied with then keeper liability
does not generally pass."
> The operator cannot pursue the keeper regardless of Notice to
Keeper compliance with other procedures.
>
> Ground 4: No Proof of Valid Authority
> Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14
of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets
out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before
any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> • the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> Ground 5: Notice to Keeper Non-Compliance
> I put the operator to strict proof that:
>
> - The Notice to Keeper complies fully with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, if the operator is attempting to
rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the
mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 renders keeper
liability unenforceable.
> - The Notice to Keeper was posted in time for it to have been
given within the relevant period. The Private Parking Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the
operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a
notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.
Evidence must show the date any third-party Mail Consolidator
actually put it in the postal system.
>
> The operator must provide actual postal records, not just
system-generated dates.
>
> Conclusion
> This PCN should be cancelled because:
>
> - No adequate notice - "ASDA Welcome" invitation concealed
charges until after entry
> - Operator cannot prove driver saw/understood terms
(Vine/Beavis standard not met)
> - PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 not satisfied - keeper liability
cannot exist
> - No proof of valid authority from landowner
> - Notice to Keeper compliance not proven
>
> The photographic evidence proves drivers entering this car
park see only invitational ASDA-branded signage with no
indication of charges.
>
> I respectfully request this appeal be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 95068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: b789
Date: October 21, 2025, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's only POPLA. Give it a go. If it doesn't succeed, the
decision is not binding on you and you do not pay anything.
#Post#: 96628--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: bigred247
Date: November 3, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@b789
Just receieved the below email from POPLA.
Here is the link to the entire pack and their rebuttle.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vCg5OYT1EbsAk0wIXAAw6t2Qoa8auJwX/view?usp=sharing
--- Quote ---
> Dear Mr Xxxxx,
>
> Your parking charge appeal against Horizon Parking Ltd - EW.
>
> Horizon Parking Ltd - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your
appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here
>
> Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is
not currently available on your account please check back later
before contacting us.
>
> You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to
provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Horizon Parking Ltd
- EW.
>
> Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of
appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA,
we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage
>
> Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended
will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for
assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence
uploaded by Horizon Parking Ltd - EW such as being unable to
view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone -
0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look
to rectify this as soon as possible.
>
> After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision
as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and
binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option
for appeal.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> POPLA Team
>
> ET6114/003
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: bigred247
Date: November 3, 2025, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is an extract of their rebuttle taken from Section B in the
evidence pack (link above)
--- Quote ---
>
> The appellant has raised several points in their appeal to
POPLA.
>
> In response to Point 1, as shown in Section E, there is ample
signage throughout the car park clearly displaying the terms and
conditions that must be adhered to. Al signs state al the
specific parking terms and parking charges ni the event of a
breach. nI accordance with The Private Parking Sector Single
Code of Practice, al signage on site is conspicuous, legible and
written in intelligible language. By entering this car park and
choosing to remain on site, the Appellant has entered into a
contract with Horizon Parking and has consented to comply with
the terms and conditions set out on the signs in that car park
which are clearly visible.
>
> In response to Point 2, again all signs state all the specific
parking terms and parking charges in the event of a breach. In
accordance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice, al signage on site si conspicuous, legible and written
in intelligible language. There are signs located at the
entrance to, and within the car park, that state the terms and
conditions that apply when parking. As clearly stipulated on
signage within the car park, payment is required for parking.
>
> In response to Point 3, The Parking Charge fuly adheres to the
strict requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and
the Registered Keeper was advised of this on both pages of the
letter they have received - please see below.
>
> (POFA). The Appellant is the Registered Keeper and they have
not confirmed whether they were the driver or who was the
driver. Therefore, because the charge is fully compliant with
POFA, the Registered Keeper is held liable for the Parking
Charge their vehicle has been issued.
>
> In response to Point 4, Horizon Parking Limited has the
authority of the legal occupier of the land to provide parking
management services in accordance with the stated terms and
conditions of parking. This is evidenced simply by the existence
of Horizon's equipment being on the legal occupier's land. Such
equipment could not be on the land without the consent of the
legal occupier. Regardless of these facts, it is settled law
that only a third party with a higher proprietary interest in
the land can challenge Horizon's authority to act. In absence of
such higher proprietary interest, Horizon is under neither a
duty nor obligation to disclose commercial documents between
Horizon and its clients.
>
> In response to Point 5, the vehicle breached the car park
terms and conditions on 16/08/25 and the Parking Charge was then
issued, and the letter sent on 26/08/25.Therefore, we have sent
the Parking Charge letter within the timeframe set out in the
Private Parking Sector Single code. It must be noted that once
the Parking Charge is issued it is not within the control of
Horizon Parking about the delivery of the letter. It is up to
the local post office to deliver the letter to its destination
on time. If the Appellant has any issue regarding the delivery,
they wil have to take it up with their local post office.
>
> When entering a car park located on private land and choosing
to remain on site, the motorist enters a valid contract and
agreed to abide by the car park's terms and conditions which are
detailed on signs, which are on display at various points within
the car park itself. The signage displayed throughout the site
advises the terms and conditions of use and one of the
conditions is that a £85.00 Parking Charge will be issued when
the terms and conditions are breached.
>
> It is the keeper's responsibility when parking on private land
to ensure they familiarize themselves with the terms and
conditions on site via the signage, this ensures they are aware
of the charge should they breach the terms and conditions on
site.
>
> By parking the vehicle on the site, the appellant entered a
valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions.
The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and
conditions of use. One of the conditions is that a £85.00
Parking Charge wil be issued when the terms and conditions are
breached.
>
> Our position remains that this Parking Charge was issued
correctly. We maintain the appellant entered a valid contract
and should pay the valid parking charges as per the signage on
the site.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96634--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 3, 2025, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bigred247 link ---
>
> In response to Point 4, Horizon Parking Limited has the
authority of the legal occupier of the land to provide parking
management services in accordance with the stated terms and
conditions of parking. This is evidenced simply by the existence
of Horizon's equipment being on the legal occupier's land. Such
equipment could not be on the land without the consent of the
legal occupier. Regardless of these facts, it is settled law
that only a third party with a higher proprietary interest in
the land can challenge Horizon's authority to act. In absence of
such higher proprietary interest, Horizon is under neither a
duty nor obligation to disclose commercial documents between
Horizon and its clients.
>
--- End Quote ---
I've not read the full evidence pack, but your response should
go to town on this point. They've failed to demonstrate they
have authority to issue parking charges on the site by failing
to disclose their contract. Their position is essentially "trust
us, we put up some signs".
Their suggestion that the existence of their equipment shows a
valid contract is nonsense - it might suggest that such
permission existed at some point, but that's not proof that they
had such permission at the time of this parking event. For all
we know their contract could have expired the week before, for
example.
#Post#: 96649--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: b789
Date: November 3, 2025, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Indeed — Horizon’s response to Point 4 is not just weak, it’s
legally indefensible and contrary to the very purpose of Section
14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). A
strong rebuttal could read as follows (for POPLA comments or
subsequent formal complaint):
--- Quote ---
> Comments on Point 4 – Authority to Operate:
>
> Horizon’s response is an exercise in deflection and
demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the legal
concept of authority or a deliberate attempt to conceal the
absence of it. Their claim that the presence of “equipment being
on the land” constitutes proof of authority is legally
meaningless. It might indicate that permission existed at some
point in time, but it cannot possibly establish that such
authority was valid and extant on 16 August 2025 — the date of
the alleged event. Contracts expire, are terminated, or
replaced, and physical signage or cameras are often left behind.
Horizon’s reasoning is therefore not evidence of authority; it
is pure conjecture dressed up as fact.
>
> Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) exists precisely to prevent this sort of evasive
behaviour. It requires operators to hold — and to be prepared to
produce — a written agreement with the landowner specifying the
boundaries, duration, rights granted, and authority to issue
parking charges in their own name. Those requirements are not
discretionary, and they are not met by simply asserting “trust
us”.
>
> Horizon’s further suggestion that only someone with a “higher
proprietary interest” can challenge their authority is equally
flawed. The question before POPLA is not one of competing
property rights, but whether Horizon had standing to form or
enforce a parking contract. POPLA’s role includes assessing
whether a parking operator has demonstrated that it has the
legal capacity to contract with motorists — not to take the
operator’s word for it.
>
> If any assessor were to accept Horizon’s argument at face
value, it would represent a fundamental failure to apply basic
principles of contract law and the very Code they are bound to
uphold. The operator has produced no evidence whatsoever of
authority, merely a circular claim that their own signs prove
their entitlement. In any legal setting, such reasoning would be
laughed out of court. Should this point alone not give reason to
cancel this PCN, in court is exactly where this will be
challenged and ridiculed.
>
> Absent a dated, signed, and contemporaneous agreement
conferring authority from the landholder, Horizon’s claim to
issue or enforce this Parking Charge is without legal
foundation. The appeal must therefore be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
You can also go to town on their point #5 with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Point 5 – “We sent it on time; delivery is the post office’s
problem”
>
> This is a masterclass in buck-passing. PoFA Schedule 4 doesn’t
care about Horizon’s “issue date”, internal print logs, or their
feelings about the post. It requires the Notice to Keeper to be
given within the relevant period. For ANPR cases, that means:
>
> - Para 9(4): the notice must be given within 14 days of the
alleged parking event.
> - Paras 9(5)–9(6): when sent by post, service is presumed on
the second working day after posting — but only if the operator
proves the date of posting.
>
> Three fatal problems for Horizon:
>
> 1. “We issued it” is not “we posted it”.
> A template print date or a back-office “generated” timestamp
proves nothing. The clock runs from entry into the postal
system, not when Horizon’s mail-merge spat out a PDF. If they
use a consolidator (Whistl, Citipost, UK Mail, etc.), “handed to
consolidator” is still not “posted”. The presumption in PoFA
9(6) only arises from actual posting.
>
> 2. The burden of proof is on the operator, not Royal Mail.
> PoFA places the duty squarely on Horizon to evidence
compliance. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires operators to retain a record of
the date of posting. Not “date of generation”, not “we think it
went out”, but the day it was put into the postal system. If
Horizon can’t produce a postal manifest, DSA/OBA handover
record, or equivalent third-party log proving posting, they
don’t get to wave the statutory presumption around like a
comfort blanket.
>
> 3. Their “not within our control” line is legally illiterate.
> Horizon chose to rely on keeper liability via post. With that
choice comes the statutory risk of proving service. If they
won’t (or can’t) evidence posting, PoFA fails. End of story.
Telling the keeper to “take it up with the post office” is the
corporate equivalent of shrugging and hoping POPLA fills in the
gaps for them. That isn’t law; it’s laziness.
>
> PoFA 9(6) — what it actually says and what it means (for the
avoidance of any doubt)
>
> “(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so ‘given’ for
the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day
after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose
‘working day’ means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a
public holiday in England and Wales.”
>
> Plain meaning:
>
> - The presumption of delivery only starts after the day of
posting, and only on the second working day thereafter.
> - The words “unless the contrary is proved” make this a
rebuttable presumption. It is not automatic. It can be displaced
by evidence.
> - To benefit from the presumption at all, the operator must
first prove the predicate fact: that the notice was posted on a
specific date.
> - Therefore, the burden of proof sits with the operator to
produce independent evidence of posting (e.g., Royal Mail
manifest, DSA/OBA handover, consolidator’s final handover to
Royal Mail). Internal “generated” dates or PDF metadata are not
proof of posting.
>
> What the assessor must apply:
>
> - No posting proof means no presumption under 9(6).
> - No presumption means the operator cannot show the notice was
“given” within 14 days per 9(4).
> - Failure on this single statutory limb collapses keeper
liability in its entirety.
>
> Horizon’s argument is not only wrong but embarrassingly
ignorant of the very statute they claim to rely on. Their line
that “it’s up to the post office” shows a complete failure to
grasp what PoFA 9(6) actually says or means. The law could not
be clearer: the notice is only presumed to be “given” on the
second working day after posting, unless the contrary is proved.
>
> That phrase makes it a rebuttable presumption, not an
automatic one. It exists only if the operator can first prove
the predicate fact that the notice was actually posted on a
specific date. Without that proof, the presumption never arises.
>
> Producing a copy of the NtK proves nothing about when or how
it entered the postal system. Horizon was put to strict proof of
postal evidence, such as a Royal Mail or consolidator handover
record, proof of first-class or equivalent postage, and a clear
reconciliation showing that—after applying working-day rules—the
notice was “given” within 14 days of the alleged event. They
provided none of this.
>
> Instead, they tried to shift responsibility to the postal
service, which is legally absurd. Horizon chose to use the
postal route to create keeper liability, so the burden of
proving service is theirs alone. Their excuse that delivery is
“not within our control” is a confession that they have no proof
of compliance. This is not a minor oversight; it is a complete
failure of a statutory condition precedent.
>
> Keeper liability therefore fails, and the appeal must be
allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96756--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: bigred247
Date: November 4, 2025, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] [member=103]DWMB2[/member]
Thank you for the feedback :)
I'll reply in the motorists response section on the POPLA
website.
#Post#: 104815--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: bigred247
Date: January 6, 2026, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA rejected my appeal. See screen print below.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/BnKkX713/Screenshot_2026_01_06_at_19_12_16.png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/LskWVqTy/Screenshot_2026_01_06_at_19_12_30.png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/YSNPx43d/Screenshot_2026_01_06_at_19_12_48.png
#Post#: 104817--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon - Failure to pay for full duration of stay
DIR By: bigred247
Date: January 6, 2026, 1:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Copied the text from the case notes below.
--- Quote ---
>
> Decision
> Unsuccessful
>
> Assessor Name
> Gayle Stanton
>
> Assessor summary of operator case
> The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and the
driver failed to pay for the full duration of stay.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
> The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: •
There was no adequate notice of the terms and conditions of the
car park and the operator cannot prove that the driver say and
understood the terms. • The PCN does not comply with - PoFA
Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 and keeper liability cannot exist. • No
proof of valid authority from landowner In the comments the
appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds of
appeal. They state that the operator has not provided sufficient
evidence that it has authority to issue PCNs on the land. They
add that the PCN was not delivered in time. The appellant has
provided four images of the signage as evidence to support their
appeal.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
> 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 Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The
Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to
comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice
explains that an entrance sign is not mandatory in areas where
drivers would not reasonably assume parking was permissible or
where it’s not practicable, such as small shop forecourts or
where planning restrictions prohibit signs. The images of the
entrance signs advise that terms and conditions apply and that
there are signs in the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single
Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying
the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout
the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when
parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must
be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be
conspicuous and legible. The operator and the appellant have
provided evidence of the signage on the site and this advises
that payment is required and that failing to pay will result in
a PCN being issued. Due to the above I am satisfied that the
signage on the site complies Section 3.1.1., 3.1.3 of The Code.
I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the
terms and conditions, however, it is important to note that 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 would have walked or driven past
at least one of the operator’s signs and as such, was afforded
this opportunity. The appellant has stated that they question
whether the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the site.
The operator has advised in the case file that it has
authorisation from the landowner to operate the land. I have
also taken into consideration the fact there are signs in situ
and if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the
landowner would remove the signage at the same time. I am
therefore satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority
at the site on the date of the parking event. Furthermore, if
authority had since been removed, it is likely that the
landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many
landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their
land without their permission. The appellant states that the PCN
is not PoFA compliant. In this case, it is not clear who the
driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued
the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper
sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper
against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied
that it is compliant. At POPLA, we accept all evidence from both
parties in good faith, and unless proven otherwise, we assume it
to be correct. While I do not refute the appellant’s version of
events, it is entirely possible that the Notice to Keeper did
not arrive due to a third- party issue concerning the
appellant’s postal the delivery service. It is outside of
POPLA’s remit to assess any aspect of a third- party issue. As
such, I will work on the basis that the operator issued the
Notice to Keeper and posted this to the appellant’s address. The
site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras,
which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to
calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This
data captured is then compared with the online transaction
record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the
correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. After considering
the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the
site and the driver did not pay for parking and therefore did
not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on
the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has
been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This
means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge
to the operator.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page