Amarillo
Tom
Super Poster
VIP Member
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
James Keeling
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: “Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage.”
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they paid for 5 hours parking and that they left the car park before this time elapsed. They state that after parking they headed straight to make a payment. They state that the methodology to pay by card was convoluted, but that their attempt to pay began 4 minutes after their arrival. The appellant states that the payment time should be taken at the beginning of the attempt to pay rather than at the end of the payment being completed. The appellant states that the parking charge is unreasonable. The appellant states that they did not see any signage which advised that payment must be made within 10 minutes of entry. The appellant has provided evidence that they began the payment process at 13:24, of their payment made at 13:34 and a copy of the PCN. In their comments, the appellant has stated that the operator has brought up another reason for issuance of the PCN. They also highlight that the signage advised of a 4 hour maximum stay, but that the operator’s payment app accepted payment for 5 hours.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified themselves as the driver of the vehicle. As such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the driver. The appellant has stated that they did not see any signage which advised that payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival. As such, I must consider whether the signage at the site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. PoFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The terms and conditions are in a small font, and as such, I do not consider the wording of the notices to be clear and cannot determine that the charge is prominent enough to be considered conspicuous or legible. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.
Successful
Assessor Name
James Keeling
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: “Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage.”
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they paid for 5 hours parking and that they left the car park before this time elapsed. They state that after parking they headed straight to make a payment. They state that the methodology to pay by card was convoluted, but that their attempt to pay began 4 minutes after their arrival. The appellant states that the payment time should be taken at the beginning of the attempt to pay rather than at the end of the payment being completed. The appellant states that the parking charge is unreasonable. The appellant states that they did not see any signage which advised that payment must be made within 10 minutes of entry. The appellant has provided evidence that they began the payment process at 13:24, of their payment made at 13:34 and a copy of the PCN. In their comments, the appellant has stated that the operator has brought up another reason for issuance of the PCN. They also highlight that the signage advised of a 4 hour maximum stay, but that the operator’s payment app accepted payment for 5 hours.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified themselves as the driver of the vehicle. As such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the driver. The appellant has stated that they did not see any signage which advised that payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival. As such, I must consider whether the signage at the site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. PoFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The terms and conditions are in a small font, and as such, I do not consider the wording of the notices to be clear and cannot determine that the charge is prominent enough to be considered conspicuous or legible. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.
