Tweet
Hi an appeal to a forbidding sign pcn has been rejected as below. Please could you advise the next steps with popla appeal. Thanks
I have carefully reviewed the case and considered the points that you raised in conjunction with the facts and evidence available to me. On this occasion, your appeal has been rejected as I am satisfied that this PCN was issued correctly. I have explained the reasoning behind this decision in more detail below.
My findings
Oat Street Car Park is private land and is subject to a parking management scheme put in place by the operator at the landowner’s request. There are specific terms and conditions in place as part of this scheme, which are displayed on the signs in place at the site. These signs have been installed in clear and prominent positions.
At this location, parking is only permitted for valid permit holders with their permit on display.
On 13/09/2021, the vehicle was parked without a valid permit on display. This was a breach of the terms and conditions and the PCN was correctly and legitimately issued as a result.
Our letter refers to the period of parking as 'the period immediately preceding the time of issue'.
The claim in question is based in contract law. When the vehicle was parked on site, a parking contract was entered into with the parking operator. As part of this contract, it was agreed that the charge detailed on the signs would be paid should the vehicle not be parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking.
Please note that this PCN was issued in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the driver’s contact details are not provided within the stipulated timeframe, liability for the charge will rest with the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they seek out, read and comply with the terms and conditions of parking that are in place. By parking on site in breach of these terms and conditions, it has been agreed that the charge detailed on the signs will be paid.
I have carefully reviewed the case and considered the points that you raised in conjunction with the facts and evidence available to me. On this occasion, your appeal has been rejected as I am satisfied that this PCN was issued correctly. I have explained the reasoning behind this decision in more detail below.
My findings
Oat Street Car Park is private land and is subject to a parking management scheme put in place by the operator at the landowner’s request. There are specific terms and conditions in place as part of this scheme, which are displayed on the signs in place at the site. These signs have been installed in clear and prominent positions.
At this location, parking is only permitted for valid permit holders with their permit on display.
On 13/09/2021, the vehicle was parked without a valid permit on display. This was a breach of the terms and conditions and the PCN was correctly and legitimately issued as a result.
Our letter refers to the period of parking as 'the period immediately preceding the time of issue'.
The claim in question is based in contract law. When the vehicle was parked on site, a parking contract was entered into with the parking operator. As part of this contract, it was agreed that the charge detailed on the signs would be paid should the vehicle not be parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking.
Please note that this PCN was issued in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the driver’s contact details are not provided within the stipulated timeframe, liability for the charge will rest with the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they seek out, read and comply with the terms and conditions of parking that are in place. By parking on site in breach of these terms and conditions, it has been agreed that the charge detailed on the signs will be paid.
Comment