Tweet
Pay & Display Ticket, POPLA rejected appeal against clearly visible ticket
I parked in my university car park, with a pay and display ticket in the back window for easy visibility. I can back to a ticket, which I obviously appealed, sending an image of the paid ticket within the correct time etc. assuming it was a mistake. My appeal was rejected on what seem to be literally no grounds. Can anyone advise what I should do next? Thanks for any help 
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states they cannot see a reason why the PCN was issued, nor why their appeal to the operator was rejected. The appellant explains they were parked in a space that required either a permit or a pay and display ticket. The appellant states their ticket was clearly visible, the vehicles either side had tickets, and did not receive a PCN. The appellant states there was no visible sign stating that a permit was needed, the only signage advised to display a ticket. The appellant states that there was no signage indicating the need for both a permit and ticket. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided evidence of their ticket.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The signage at the site states “This car park is private property and by entering you contract you consent to the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park Operators and to: PARK. All vehicles must display a valid Car Parking Permit or a valid pay and display ticket at a cost of £3 per day. By failing to comply with any of these conditions to agree to pay a Parking Notice of £70”. Having reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied there are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout the site displaying the terms and conditions offered with a helpline number to use if a motorist needs assistance. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site on the date of the event. From the photographs, I can see there is neither a permit nor pay and display ticket displayed. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit. The appellant states they cannot see a reason why the PCN was issued, nor why their appeal to the operator was rejected. The appellant explains they were parked in a space that required either a permit or a pay and display ticket. The appellant states their ticket was clearly visible, the vehicles either side had tickets, and did not receive a PCN. The appellant states there was no visible sign stating that a permit was needed, the only signage advised to display a ticket. The appellant states that there was no signage indicating the need for both a permit and ticket. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided evidence of their ticket. I note the appellant states they do not understand why the PCN was issued and why their appeal was rejected, however, upon review of the evidence provided by the operator relating to both I am satisfied they have fully explained the reasons. I further note that other vehicles at the site were not issued with a PCN; however, this is irrelevant to the issuing of this PCN and does not need to be considered. I appreciate the appellant wishes to change their grounds of appeal after they have reviewed the operator’s case file. However, we would advise that when submitting your appeal online, the appellant ticked a box to confirm they understood and accepted our terms and conditions, which stated as follows: “You will not be able to edit your appeal once you have submitted it. It is important you have provided all necessary information as you cannot change POPLA’s decision later”. Therefore, we are unable to accept any additional grounds of appeal the appellant wishes to make. In relation to signage, Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided images of signage at the site. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. The sign does state that permit or valid pay and display ticket can be displayed, due to this I am satisfied the operator has made their signage conspicuous and legible, and adhered to section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. It is the duty of the appellant to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they did not display a valid permit, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states they cannot see a reason why the PCN was issued, nor why their appeal to the operator was rejected. The appellant explains they were parked in a space that required either a permit or a pay and display ticket. The appellant states their ticket was clearly visible, the vehicles either side had tickets, and did not receive a PCN. The appellant states there was no visible sign stating that a permit was needed, the only signage advised to display a ticket. The appellant states that there was no signage indicating the need for both a permit and ticket. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided evidence of their ticket.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The signage at the site states “This car park is private property and by entering you contract you consent to the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park Operators and to: PARK. All vehicles must display a valid Car Parking Permit or a valid pay and display ticket at a cost of £3 per day. By failing to comply with any of these conditions to agree to pay a Parking Notice of £70”. Having reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied there are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout the site displaying the terms and conditions offered with a helpline number to use if a motorist needs assistance. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site on the date of the event. From the photographs, I can see there is neither a permit nor pay and display ticket displayed. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit. The appellant states they cannot see a reason why the PCN was issued, nor why their appeal to the operator was rejected. The appellant explains they were parked in a space that required either a permit or a pay and display ticket. The appellant states their ticket was clearly visible, the vehicles either side had tickets, and did not receive a PCN. The appellant states there was no visible sign stating that a permit was needed, the only signage advised to display a ticket. The appellant states that there was no signage indicating the need for both a permit and ticket. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided evidence of their ticket. I note the appellant states they do not understand why the PCN was issued and why their appeal was rejected, however, upon review of the evidence provided by the operator relating to both I am satisfied they have fully explained the reasons. I further note that other vehicles at the site were not issued with a PCN; however, this is irrelevant to the issuing of this PCN and does not need to be considered. I appreciate the appellant wishes to change their grounds of appeal after they have reviewed the operator’s case file. However, we would advise that when submitting your appeal online, the appellant ticked a box to confirm they understood and accepted our terms and conditions, which stated as follows: “You will not be able to edit your appeal once you have submitted it. It is important you have provided all necessary information as you cannot change POPLA’s decision later”. Therefore, we are unable to accept any additional grounds of appeal the appellant wishes to make. In relation to signage, Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided images of signage at the site. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. The sign does state that permit or valid pay and display ticket can be displayed, due to this I am satisfied the operator has made their signage conspicuous and legible, and adhered to section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. It is the duty of the appellant to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they did not display a valid permit, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.
Comment