DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99891--------------------------------------------------
Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: November 26, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Received a PCN through the post stating the driver did not pay
and the duration was around 12 mins on 17/11
It was a small car park, the driver did not see any signage
prior to entering the car park.
The driver saw a signage for disable badge user and assumed it
was free for disable badge users who parks in the bay.
Unfortunately the drivers dashcam didn`t capture this footage
and the driver isn`t able to go back to this location as it is
in North Wales.
On 26th November, registered keeper received a NTK which states
the date of sending is 20th November 2025.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mFr1kHrN/markup-1000242777.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/V0RfJ7c5/markup-1000243031.jpg
#Post#: 99919--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: November 26, 2025, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) only shows entry/exit, not period of
parking. SO you can argue no Keeper liability.
There are several other points that can be argued but I'm not
wasting time on an initial appeal that will be rejected anyway,
no matter what. You can argue a load of points later with POPLA.
For now, simply appeal with the following, ONLY as the Keeper.
Do not identify the driver:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper and I dispute your parking charge.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it does not specify a
period of parking and does not properly describe the terms
allegedly breached. You therefore cannot transfer liability from
the unknown driver to the keeper.
>
> Further, the driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder. Your
unclear signage regarding disabled bays and any payment
requirements, together with the very short stay of around 12
minutes, amounts to a failure to make reasonable adjustments
under the Equality Act 2010.
>
> Please cancel this charge or issue a POPLA verification code.
I do not consent to my personal data being used for any purpose
other than considering this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
Come back when that is rejected.
#Post#: 99920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 26, 2025, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the intervening time, if you're able to acquire photos of the
signage (and any lack thereof!) this would be useful.
#Post#: 100826--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 3, 2025, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> In the intervening time, if you're able to acquire photos of
the signage (and any lack thereof!) this would be useful.
>
--- End Quote ---
I haven`t been able to obtain the signage but have sent the
centre an email. hopefully they can send this over.
#Post#: 100830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 3, 2025, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) only shows entry/exit, not period
of parking. SO you can argue no Keeper liability.
>
> There are several other points that can be argued but I'm not
wasting time on an initial appeal that will be rejected anyway,
no matter what. You can argue a load of points later with POPLA.
For now, simply appeal with the following, ONLY as the Keeper.
Do not identify the driver:
>
> [quote]I am the registered keeper and I dispute your parking
charge.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it does not specify a
period of parking and does not properly describe the terms
allegedly breached. You therefore cannot transfer liability from
the unknown driver to the keeper.
>
> Further, the driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder. Your
unclear signage regarding disabled bays and any payment
requirements, together with the very short stay of around 12
minutes, amounts to a failure to make reasonable adjustments
under the Equality Act 2010.
>
> Please cancel this charge or issue a POPLA verification code.
I do not consent to my personal data being used for any purpose
other than considering this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
Come back when that is rejected.
[/quote]
Is the period of Parking which is stated at the top right corner
not the same?
#Post#: 100859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: December 3, 2025, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, it’s not the same – and it’s still a valid PoFA point.
What they’ve put there is just ANPR “time on site” (i.e. the
difference between the camera’s entry and exit timestamps), then
relabelled as “period of parking”. ANPR only records when a
vehicle passes the cameras, not when it is actually stationary
in a bay. The Protection of Freedoms Act talks about a “period
of parking”, which by definition excludes the time spent:
• driving in and finding a space
• reading any signs / deciding whether to stay
• queuing or manoeuvring to leave
So, from a strict PoFA Schedule 4 point of view, they have still
only evidenced and described entry/exit and a derived duration,
not a true “period of parking” as required.
Some POPLA assessors gloss over that and accept this wording,
others don’t – but it is absolutely still worth running as a
keeper-liability point and there is no need to change the appeal
wording I suggested.
#Post#: 101109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 5, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> No, it’s not the same – and it’s still a valid PoFA point.
>
> What they’ve put there is just ANPR “time on site” (i.e. the
difference between the camera’s entry and exit timestamps), then
relabelled as “period of parking”. ANPR only records when a
vehicle passes the cameras, not when it is actually stationary
in a bay. The Protection of Freedoms Act talks about a “period
of parking”, which by definition excludes the time spent:
>
> • driving in and finding a space
> • reading any signs / deciding whether to stay
> • queuing or manoeuvring to leave
>
> So, from a strict PoFA Schedule 4 point of view, they have
still only evidenced and described entry/exit and a derived
duration, not a true “period of parking” as required.
>
> Some POPLA assessors gloss over that and accept this wording,
others don’t – but it is absolutely still worth running as a
keeper-liability point and there is no need to change the appeal
wording I suggested.
>
--- End Quote ---
This is interesting - Thank you for the pointers.
#Post#: 101110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 5, 2025, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Below is what they replied with. I have edited the details.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/wZ2sktjx/62f742d6-da44-4021-9651-759848ea63ce-0.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/zcRm8pL/62f742d6-da44-4021-9651-759848ea63ce-1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/67640LSy/62f742d6-da44-4021-9651-759848ea63ce-2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/qFmHC4KY/62f742d6-da44-4021-9651-759848ea63ce-3.jpg
#Post#: 101146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: December 5, 2025, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If that is a disabled bay, where are the signs with the terms
and conditions that must be readable by the driver without
needing to exit the vehicle as per PPSCoP §4.1 which states:
--- Quote ---
> 4.1 The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign
containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed
without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for
drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed
decision on whether to park at the premises.
--- End Quote ---
Here is a POPLA draft you can paste directly into the webform. :
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxx] – Vehicle [VRM]
> Operator: Initial Parking Ltd
> Site: Y Ganolfan Community Centre, LL49 9LU
> Date of alleged event: 17/11/2025
> Date of Notice to Keeper: 20/11/2025
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. My liability is
limited to that of the registered keeper, which is denied. I
contend that I am not liable for this Parking Charge Notice and
I request that POPLA allow my appeal on the following grounds:
>
> 1. No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 – the Notice to Keeper does not specify a valid “period of
parking” as required by Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)
>
> 2. Further non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 Schedule 4, including failure to describe the parking
charges allegedly due under paragraph 9(2)(d)
>
> 3. Failure to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1 – no terms and conditions visible
from within the vehicle in the disabled bay
>
> 4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to
disabled bays and Blue Badge holders
>
> 5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled
driver – Equality Act 2010
>
> 6. No evidence of the operator’s landowner authority
>
> 7. ANPR evidence does not prove any breach of a clearly-stated
term and fails to take account of consideration and grace
periods, especially for disabled motorists
>
> 8. No keeper liability – no valid “period of parking” (PoFA
2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a))
>
> The operator is attempting to hold me liable as keeper under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). To
do so they must comply fully with all conditions in paragraph
9(2).
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) to:
>
> “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
>
> The Initial Parking NtK does not specify any period of
parking. It merely states:
>
> – a “Date of Parking Event: 17/11/2025”
> – an “Arrival Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:25:38”
> – an “Exit Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:38:19”
> – and then labels “Period of Parking: 00h:12m:41s”
>
> These times come solely from ANPR images showing the vehicle
passing cameras upon entry and exit. They show nothing more than
the total time the vehicle was somewhere within range of the
cameras. They do not and cannot show when or for how long the
vehicle was actually parked in a bay as opposed to:
>
> • driving in and finding a space
> • manoeuvring
> • assisting a disabled passenger to alight or board
> • reading any signs
> • queuing at or walking to a payment machine
> • driving out of the car park
>
> The law uses the phrase “period of parking”, not “time on
site”. ANPR entry and exit timestamps do not automatically
equate to a statutory “period of parking”. The NtK fails to
specify any actual span of time during which the vehicle was
stationary and parked. It follows that paragraph 9(2)(a) has not
been complied with.
>
> Because the NtK does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(a), keeper
liability does not arise. Only the unknown driver could ever be
liable. As the operator has not identified the driver and I, as
keeper, have chosen not to name them, POPLA must find that I
cannot be held liable.
>
> 2. Further PoFA non-compliance – paragraph 9(2)(d)
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(d) requires a Notice to Keeper to:
>
> “describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the
end of that period [of parking], the circumstances in which the
requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the
requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the
other facts that made them payable”.
>
> The NtK states only that:
>
> – the “Parking Charge Amount Due” is £100 (£60 if paid within
14 days); and
> – “By not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by
remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in
accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage
displayed on site, the Parking Charge is now payable to Initial
Parking, as the Creditor.”
>
> This does not describe any “parking charges due from the
driver as at the end of that period”. There is no description
of:
>
> – what, if any, tariff applied at this location;
> – the cost of parking for the relevant duration; or
> – any unpaid tariff or other “parking charge” due from the
driver.
>
> Instead, the NtK jumps straight to the £100 contractual charge
allegedly payable on breach. PoFA makes a clear distinction
between “parking charges” (the underlying tariff) and the “sum …
specified in the notice” claimed from the keeper. By failing to
describe the actual parking charges due at the end of the
parking period, the NtK does not meet paragraph 9(2)(d).
>
> Again, where an operator seeks to rely on PoFA, they must
comply fully with all of paragraph 9(2). They have not done so.
Keeper liability does not apply and the appeal must be allowed
on this ground alone.
>
> 3. Failure to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1 – no terms and
conditions visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay
>
> The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is
binding on BPA members and sets out mandatory requirements.
Section 4.1 states:
>
> “The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign
containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed
without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for
drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed
decision on whether to park at the premises.”
>
> In this case:
>
> – the driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder;
> – the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay; and
> – there was no sign containing the full terms and conditions
visible from inside the vehicle in that bay.
>
> The driver saw a sign relating to the disabled bay and a Blue
Badge symbol and understood this to indicate that Blue Badge
holders could use that bay. However, there was no large, legible
sign facing the bay, at eye level, setting out the full parking
terms, including any requirement for Blue Badge holders to pay a
tariff and any risk of a £100 charge.
>
> Any tariff and penalty terms that the operator relies on
appear to be buried on separate general tariff signs elsewhere
in the car park. Those signs:
>
> – could not be read from inside the disabled bay; and
> – would have required the disabled driver to exit the vehicle,
move around the site and search for the small print.
>
> That is the exact scenario PPSCoP 4.1 is designed to prevent.
Initial Parking have failed to provide a single sign with the
relevant terms which can be read from within the vehicle by a
disabled driver considering whether to park. As a result, a Blue
Badge holder was not able to make an informed decision before
parking, and any alleged contract is fundamentally flawed.
>
> A £100 charge arising from a set of terms that were not
presented in compliance with PPSCoP 4.1 should not be enforced,
and this appeal should be allowed on this ground.
>
> 4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to
disabled bays
>
> Separately from PPSCoP 4.1, the signage at this site is
generally inadequate and unclear.
>
> The driver reports that this is a small car park and that no
clear or legible signage was visible prior to entering. Upon
parking, the driver saw signage relating to the disabled bay and
reasonably believed that a Blue Badge holder could park there.
There was nothing obvious to indicate that Blue Badge holders
were required to pay the normal tariff or that a £100 charge
would be issued after a stay of around 12 minutes without
payment.
>
> Initial Parking’s rejection letter refers to their “very
large, BPA approved signs” and claims that they state “These
tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders”. If this wording exists,
it appears to be buried in the main body of a general tariff
sign, not on a dedicated disabled-bay sign. If a Blue Badge
holder must pay to avoid a £100 charge, that is a core term
which must be displayed prominently and unambiguously at or next
to the disabled bay.
>
> I put Initial Parking to strict proof, by way of dated,
contemporaneous photographs and a site plan, that:
>
> – a compliant entrance sign was present and clearly visible to
a driver entering the car park;
> – there was a clear, prominent sign adjacent to or immediately
facing the disabled bay explaining that tariffs apply to Blue
Badge holders and that failure to pay would result in a £100
charge; and
> – the text on such signs was of sufficient size and contrast
to be read by a disabled driver or passenger without needing to
search for small print across the site.
>
> In the absence of such evidence, POPLA should conclude that
the alleged contractual terms were not adequately communicated
and cannot be enforced.
>
> 5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments – Equality Act 2010
>
> The driver is a disabled person and holds a Blue Badge. The
badge is issued only to those whose mobility and daily
activities are substantially and long-term impaired. The
Equality Act 2010 requires service providers, including car park
operators, to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled
people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared
with non-disabled people.
>
> Reasonable adjustments in a car park context include:
>
> – clearer and more prominent signage at disabled bays in
larger, more legible text;
> – ensuring that key terms (such as whether Blue Badge holders
must pay and any risk of a large charge) are made immediately
obvious to disabled drivers;
> – allowing longer consideration and payment times to account
for slower mobility, use of walking aids, or difficulty reading
signs and using machines or apps.
>
> In this case, Initial Parking appears to have a blanket policy
that “These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders” but has
failed to communicate this clearly at the point of parking in
the disabled bay. A disabled driver who parks for about 12
minutes in a disabled bay, believing in good faith that a Blue
Badge entitles them to park, should not be penalised with a £100
charge where the operator has not provided clear, accessible
information or reasonable adjustments.
>
> Although POPLA cannot make a binding finding of
discrimination, it can and should recognise that a charge which
would be contrary to the Equality Act is not “fair” or
“reasonable” and should not be upheld.
>
> 6. No evidence of landowner authority
>
> Initial Parking is put to strict proof that it has a fully
executed, contemporaneous contract with the landowner (Y
Ganolfan Community Centre or its lawful managing agent) granting
it authority to:
>
> – manage parking on the land;
> – issue Parking Charge Notices; and
> – pursue payment and legal action in its own name.
>
> A generic, redacted contract or a short witness statement will
not be sufficient. POPLA and the courts require evidence that
the operator has standing to offer parking contracts and recover
charges for the specific site and period in question.
>
> In the absence of such evidence, the operator has no standing
to enforce charges and the appeal must be allowed.
>
> 7. ANPR evidence, consideration and grace periods
>
> The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit times to
assert a contravention. Even if the NtK were otherwise
PoFA-compliant (which is denied), the ANPR evidence does not
establish:
>
> – when the vehicle was actually parked in a bay;
> – how long it remained stationary;
> – what the driver was doing (reading signs, assisting a
disabled passenger, deciding whether to stay, or choosing to
leave); or
> – that any applicable consideration or grace periods were
exceeded.
>
> The total time between ANPR images is only 12 minutes 41
seconds. For a disabled Blue Badge holder, that period could
easily be taken up by:
>
> – entering and finding an appropriate disabled bay;
> – assisting the disabled driver or passenger to alight;
> – attempting to read any signs that might apply to the bay;
and
> – deciding to leave once the situation is unclear.
>
> The PPSCoP requires operators to allow a consideration period
at the start and a grace period at the end of parking. Disabled
motorists may reasonably require longer periods to perform the
same tasks as non-disabled motorists. Initial Parking has
produced no evidence of the actual time spent parked, nor that
any fair and reasonable observation, consideration and grace
periods were exceeded.
>
> On the balance of probabilities, a total “time on site” of
around 12 minutes for a disabled Blue Badge holder is consistent
with genuine attempts to understand unclear signage and then
leave, rather than any deliberate attempt to avoid payment.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons set out above:
>
> – the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, so keeper liability does not
arise;
> – the operator has failed to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1,
because no sign containing the terms and conditions was visible
from within the vehicle in the disabled bay;
> – the signage, particularly in relation to disabled bays and
Blue Badge holders, was inadequate and unclear;
> – the operator has not demonstrated any reasonable adjustments
as required by the Equality Act 2010;
> – no evidence has been provided of sufficient landowner
authority; and
> – the ANPR evidence does not show any breach of a
clearly-communicated term, particularly once consideration and
grace periods for a disabled motorist are taken into account.
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and
direct Initial Parking Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101192--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 5, 2025, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If that is a disabled bay, where are the signs with the terms
and conditions that must be readable by the driver without
needing to exit the vehicle as per PPSCoP §4.1 which states:
>
> [quote]4.1 The parking operator must ensure that at least one
sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be
viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order
for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed
decision on whether to park at the premises.
--- End Quote ---
Here is a POPLA draft you can paste directly into the webform. :
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxx] – Vehicle [VRM]
> Operator: Initial Parking Ltd
> Site: Y Ganolfan Community Centre, LL49 9LU
> Date of alleged event: 17/11/2025
> Date of Notice to Keeper: 20/11/2025
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. My liability is
limited to that of the registered keeper, which is denied. I
contend that I am not liable for this Parking Charge Notice and
I request that POPLA allow my appeal on the following grounds:
>
> 1. No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 – the Notice to Keeper does not specify a valid “period of
parking” as required by Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)
>
> 2. Further non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 Schedule 4, including failure to describe the parking
charges allegedly due under paragraph 9(2)(d)
>
> 3. Failure to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1 – no terms and conditions visible
from within the vehicle in the disabled bay
>
> 4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to
disabled bays and Blue Badge holders
>
> 5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled
driver – Equality Act 2010
>
> 6. No evidence of the operator’s landowner authority
>
> 7. ANPR evidence does not prove any breach of a clearly-stated
term and fails to take account of consideration and grace
periods, especially for disabled motorists
>
> 8. No keeper liability – no valid “period of parking” (PoFA
2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a))
>
> The operator is attempting to hold me liable as keeper under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). To
do so they must comply fully with all conditions in paragraph
9(2).
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) to:
>
> “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
>
> The Initial Parking NtK does not specify any period of
parking. It merely states:
>
> – a “Date of Parking Event: 17/11/2025”
> – an “Arrival Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:25:38”
> – an “Exit Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:38:19”
> – and then labels “Period of Parking: 00h:12m:41s”
>
> These times come solely from ANPR images showing the vehicle
passing cameras upon entry and exit. They show nothing more than
the total time the vehicle was somewhere within range of the
cameras. They do not and cannot show when or for how long the
vehicle was actually parked in a bay as opposed to:
>
> • driving in and finding a space
> • manoeuvring
> • assisting a disabled passenger to alight or board
> • reading any signs
> • queuing at or walking to a payment machine
> • driving out of the car park
>
> The law uses the phrase “period of parking”, not “time on
site”. ANPR entry and exit timestamps do not automatically
equate to a statutory “period of parking”. The NtK fails to
specify any actual span of time during which the vehicle was
stationary and parked. It follows that paragraph 9(2)(a) has not
been complied with.
>
> Because the NtK does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(a), keeper
liability does not arise. Only the unknown driver could ever be
liable. As the operator has not identified the driver and I, as
keeper, have chosen not to name them, POPLA must find that I
cannot be held liable.
>
> 2. Further PoFA non-compliance – paragraph 9(2)(d)
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(d) requires a Notice to Keeper to:
>
> “describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the
end of that period [of parking], the circumstances in which the
requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the
requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the
other facts that made them payable”.
>
> The NtK states only that:
>
> – the “Parking Charge Amount Due” is £100 (£60 if paid within
14 days); and
> – “By not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by
remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in
accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage
displayed on site, the Parking Charge is now payable to Initial
Parking, as the Creditor.”
>
> This does not describe any “parking charges due from the
driver as at the end of that period”. There is no description
of:
>
> – what, if any, tariff applied at this location;
> – the cost of parking for the relevant duration; or
> – any unpaid tariff or other “parking charge” due from the
driver.
>
> Instead, the NtK jumps straight to the £100 contractual charge
allegedly payable on breach. PoFA makes a clear distinction
between “parking charges” (the underlying tariff) and the “sum …
specified in the notice” claimed from the keeper. By failing to
describe the actual parking charges due at the end of the
parking period, the NtK does not meet paragraph 9(2)(d).
>
> Again, where an operator seeks to rely on PoFA, they must
comply fully with all of paragraph 9(2). They have not done so.
Keeper liability does not apply and the appeal must be allowed
on this ground alone.
>
> 3. Failure to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1 – no terms and
conditions visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay
>
> The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is
binding on BPA members and sets out mandatory requirements.
Section 4.1 states:
>
> “The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign
containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed
without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for
drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed
decision on whether to park at the premises.”
>
> In this case:
>
> – the driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder;
> – the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay; and
> – there was no sign containing the full terms and conditions
visible from inside the vehicle in that bay.
>
> The driver saw a sign relating to the disabled bay and a Blue
Badge symbol and understood this to indicate that Blue Badge
holders could use that bay. However, there was no large, legible
sign facing the bay, at eye level, setting out the full parking
terms, including any requirement for Blue Badge holders to pay a
tariff and any risk of a £100 charge.
>
> Any tariff and penalty terms that the operator relies on
appear to be buried on separate general tariff signs elsewhere
in the car park. Those signs:
>
> – could not be read from inside the disabled bay; and
> – would have required the disabled driver to exit the vehicle,
move around the site and search for the small print.
>
> That is the exact scenario PPSCoP 4.1 is designed to prevent.
Initial Parking have failed to provide a single sign with the
relevant terms which can be read from within the vehicle by a
disabled driver considering whether to park. As a result, a Blue
Badge holder was not able to make an informed decision before
parking, and any alleged contract is fundamentally flawed.
>
> A £100 charge arising from a set of terms that were not
presented in compliance with PPSCoP 4.1 should not be enforced,
and this appeal should be allowed on this ground.
>
> 4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to
disabled bays
>
> Separately from PPSCoP 4.1, the signage at this site is
generally inadequate and unclear.
>
> The driver reports that this is a small car park and that no
clear or legible signage was visible prior to entering. Upon
parking, the driver saw signage relating to the disabled bay and
reasonably believed that a Blue Badge holder could park there.
There was nothing obvious to indicate that Blue Badge holders
were required to pay the normal tariff or that a £100 charge
would be issued after a stay of around 12 minutes without
payment.
>
> Initial Parking’s rejection letter refers to their “very
large, BPA approved signs” and claims that they state “These
tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders”. If this wording exists,
it appears to be buried in the main body of a general tariff
sign, not on a dedicated disabled-bay sign. If a Blue Badge
holder must pay to avoid a £100 charge, that is a core term
which must be displayed prominently and unambiguously at or next
to the disabled bay.
>
> I put Initial Parking to strict proof, by way of dated,
contemporaneous photographs and a site plan, that:
>
> – a compliant entrance sign was present and clearly visible to
a driver entering the car park;
> – there was a clear, prominent sign adjacent to or immediately
facing the disabled bay explaining that tariffs apply to Blue
Badge holders and that failure to pay would result in a £100
charge; and
> – the text on such signs was of sufficient size and contrast
to be read by a disabled driver or passenger without needing to
search for small print across the site.
>
> In the absence of such evidence, POPLA should conclude that
the alleged contractual terms were not adequately communicated
and cannot be enforced.
>
> 5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments – Equality Act 2010
>
> The driver is a disabled person and holds a Blue Badge. The
badge is issued only to those whose mobility and daily
activities are substantially and long-term impaired. The
Equality Act 2010 requires service providers, including car park
operators, to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled
people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared
with non-disabled people.
>
> Reasonable adjustments in a car park context include:
>
> – clearer and more prominent signage at disabled bays in
larger, more legible text;
> – ensuring that key terms (such as whether Blue Badge holders
must pay and any risk of a large charge) are made immediately
obvious to disabled drivers;
> – allowing longer consideration and payment times to account
for slower mobility, use of walking aids, or difficulty reading
signs and using machines or apps.
>
> In this case, Initial Parking appears to have a blanket policy
that “These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders” but has
failed to communicate this clearly at the point of parking in
the disabled bay. A disabled driver who parks for about 12
minutes in a disabled bay, believing in good faith that a Blue
Badge entitles them to park, should not be penalised with a £100
charge where the operator has not provided clear, accessible
information or reasonable adjustments.
>
> Although POPLA cannot make a binding finding of
discrimination, it can and should recognise that a charge which
would be contrary to the Equality Act is not “fair” or
“reasonable” and should not be upheld.
>
> 6. No evidence of landowner authority
>
> Initial Parking is put to strict proof that it has a fully
executed, contemporaneous contract with the landowner (Y
Ganolfan Community Centre or its lawful managing agent) granting
it authority to:
>
> – manage parking on the land;
> – issue Parking Charge Notices; and
> – pursue payment and legal action in its own name.
>
> A generic, redacted contract or a short witness statement will
not be sufficient. POPLA and the courts require evidence that
the operator has standing to offer parking contracts and recover
charges for the specific site and period in question.
>
> In the absence of such evidence, the operator has no standing
to enforce charges and the appeal must be allowed.
>
> 7. ANPR evidence, consideration and grace periods
>
> The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit times to
assert a contravention. Even if the NtK were otherwise
PoFA-compliant (which is denied), the ANPR evidence does not
establish:
>
> – when the vehicle was actually parked in a bay;
> – how long it remained stationary;
> – what the driver was doing (reading signs, assisting a
disabled passenger, deciding whether to stay, or choosing to
leave); or
> – that any applicable consideration or grace periods were
exceeded.
>
> The total time between ANPR images is only 12 minutes 41
seconds. For a disabled Blue Badge holder, that period could
easily be taken up by:
>
> – entering and finding an appropriate disabled bay;
> – assisting the disabled driver or passenger to alight;
> – attempting to read any signs that might apply to the bay;
and
> – deciding to leave once the situation is unclear.
>
> The PPSCoP requires operators to allow a consideration period
at the start and a grace period at the end of parking. Disabled
motorists may reasonably require longer periods to perform the
same tasks as non-disabled motorists. Initial Parking has
produced no evidence of the actual time spent parked, nor that
any fair and reasonable observation, consideration and grace
periods were exceeded.
>
> On the balance of probabilities, a total “time on site” of
around 12 minutes for a disabled Blue Badge holder is consistent
with genuine attempts to understand unclear signage and then
leave, rather than any deliberate attempt to avoid payment.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons set out above:
>
> – the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, so keeper liability does not
arise;
> – the operator has failed to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1,
because no sign containing the terms and conditions was visible
from within the vehicle in the disabled bay;
> – the signage, particularly in relation to disabled bays and
Blue Badge holders, was inadequate and unclear;
> – the operator has not demonstrated any reasonable adjustments
as required by the Equality Act 2010;
> – no evidence has been provided of sufficient landowner
authority; and
> – the ANPR evidence does not show any breach of a
clearly-communicated term, particularly once consideration and
grace periods for a disabled motorist are taken into account.
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and
direct Initial Parking Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Thank you for this - I have submitted this to POPla - let`s see
what they come up with.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page