Buy all your VW California Accessories at the Club Shop Visit Shop

Parking fine

What are the chances of having my PCN overturned?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
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.
 
Good news and well done Tom. More successful visit to Pizza Express than Prince Andrew.
 
On 30 December I went with my wife, parents and children to Greenwich Theatre to see a rather good pantomime of Sleeping Beauty.

Today I received a fine for "Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage".

I paid for the parking by mobile phone app; two sessions, the first £10 for four hours, the second £2.50 for one hour. After four hours the app reminded me that the first session was about to expire and offered me an extension of 1, 2, 3 or 4 hours maximum extension. Being in pizza express at this time (yes - that's really my alibi), and nearly finished with our meal I selected an hour extension.

It turns out that the signage limits parking to four hours.

In my I appeal I have said it is unreasonable to offer a parking extension beyond four hours, and freely and willingly accept payment for parking beyond four hours, if the parking time limit is four hours.

What are the chances of having the PCN overturned?
Surely they made and offer to you which you accepted when you took out the original parking ticket. When they offered you an extension that was a new offer which you accepted. They are 2 independent offers not unless the second one contained a clause referencing the 4 hour limit ... Been a while since i did contract law but I would have thought you have 2 separate offers and acceptances and hence contracts and the presence of the second offer ( if it didn't contain a reference to the 4 hours) would have nullified the first ones maximum limit !
 
Common sense at last:thumb
It looks to me that the assessor decided the case immediately, but instead of tackling my substantive point: that the payment process was convoluted and took too long, decided to copy and paste his decision from a previous case on inadequate signage.
 
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.


Brilliant.

Well done Tom,
 
Surely they made and offer to you which you accepted when you took out the original parking ticket. When they offered you an extension that was a new offer which you accepted. They are 2 independent offers not unless the second one contained a clause referencing the 4 hour limit ... Been a while since i did contract law but I would have thought you have 2 separate offers and acceptances and hence contracts and the presence of the second offer ( if it didn't contain a reference to the 4 hours) would have nullified the first ones maximum limit !
Agreed - but they were not challenging me on the one hour extension but on the clause that required payment within ten minutes of arrival.
 
Well done. These crooks need to be challenged as much as possible and you have definitely brought the fight to them.
 
Well done. These crooks need to be challenged as much as possible and you have definitely brought the fight to them.
If more people challenged perhaps they’d think twice before slapping unreasonable notices on. Sadly a lot of people can’t be bothered or just roll over and accept things even if they’re wrong.
Well done Tom.
 
If more people challenged perhaps they’d think twice before slapping unreasonable notices on. Sadly a lot of people can’t be bothered or just roll over and accept things even if they’re wrong.
Well done Tom.
I think the ticket was issued automatically - but the parking company should have had the wit to withdraw it once they received my representations. To allow the matter to progress to POPLA was absurd.
 
I thought you had a chance of less than 50% of winning, I am happy to have been wrong and that you won instead!
 
I thought you had a chance of less than 50% of winning, I am happy to have been wrong and that you won instead!
Ten people thought: "Your stuffed - you will just have to pay up!"

@keredewor @Azteccamper @jamessclarke @pjm-84 @California124 @MarkVw2017 @Matty @Mike Cresswell @Dottybus @Ch1pbutty

I gave myself 76-99% chance of success.

Only six people had complete confidence that common sense would prevail.

Congratulations to @Brindisi @DJCWORCS @Ian Maddocks @Calibus @jmcneil @Scottedog
 
Agree, but you passed on a technicality. Signage. Either way, a win is a win.
 
Happy days glad I was wrong and you beat the buggers!
 
Any win is a win. If the sign had been ok, I think the other representations stood a reasonable chance too.
It is quite a technical issue to consider. If a sign says "payment must be made within ten minutes" when do you count payment as being made: once payment is offered or once it is accepted? At the start of the transaction or at the end of the transaction? I'm really not surprised the adjudicator ducked the issue and ruled on a simpler matter.
 
Back
Top