1 Date of the infringement : 17th april 2019
2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] : 25th april 2019
3 Date received : 26th april 2019
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] YES
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] YES
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up YES
7 Who is the parking company? PARKING EYE
8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS LUTON AIRPORT, 2 Percival Way, Luton LU2 9GP
For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA
There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,
please check HERE
If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here: REJECTED BY POPLA
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the vehicle did a number of ‘U’ turns outside of the car park. He says at no point did the vehicle enter the car park. The appellant has provided a photograph of the entrance to the car park within his submission to POPLA.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that he was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering his liability as driver of the vehicle.
The terms and conditions of the site state: “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.
The operator has issues the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to make a valid payment.
The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 19:06 and exiting at 19:46, totalling a stay of 39 minutes.
On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached.
I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice.
The appellant states the vehicle did a number of ‘U’ turns outside of the car park.
He says at no point did the vehicle enter the car park.
Whilst I appreciate these comments, I have not been provided with any evidence which demonstrates the appellant was making a U-turn on the day in question.
The operator has provided a photograph of the appellant entering and exiting the site.
As such, I am satisfied the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for 39 minutes.
I appreciate the appellant has provided a photograph of the entrance to the site; however, I am not satisfied this is sufficient to demonstrate that the appellant did not park on site for the times stipulates on the cameras.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage.
On this occasion, the appellant has failed to make a valid payment and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions.
I conclude the PCN was issued correctly.
I must refuse the appeal.