Please read the below - the outcome of my appeal..please pay attention to the part that I highlighted as it may help others.
The appellant has identified themselves as the driver on the date of the event as such I am considering driver liability. The signage in place at this site sets out the terms and conditions of the contract on offer; each driver is given an opportunity to review the signage prior to parking with an option to leave the site if they are not able to comply with the terms and conditions offered. The signage states, “Up to 1 hour £2.50”. There is a contact number on the signage for motorists to use if assistance is required. The burden of proof begins with the operator to demonstrate that it has correctly issued the parking charge with evidence and information to support their submission. The operator has supplied photographic evidence to show that the appellant entered the car park at 13:23 and left at 13:53, remaining for 29 minutes. The charge was issued by for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. I consider that there was a contract between the driver and the operator, but it had been breached resulting in the PCN being issued. Within their appeal the appellant has raised concern about the signage in place at this particular car park I must therefore consider whether the signage is sufficient and clear in line with their concerns. Section 19 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice advises that drivers using private land will be governed by specific terms and conditions set out in the signage and that a contract is offered. The expected standard is that the signage is clear, conspicuous and legible so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Having considered the photographic evidence I can see that the signage throughout the site is reasonable, visible and that the wording is clear. I can see from the operator’s site map that it demonstrates the signage is placed throughout the site. I am satisfied that the signage meets the relevant standards. The car park in question is Novotel Ipswich Centre Hotel, Ipswich, IP1 IUP, it offers parking for Hotel guests with parking tariffs applying 24 hours a day 7 days a week. There is reference to the fact that Hotel guests must provide a full and correct registration number in order to obtain a permit paying £8 for 24 hours. However, there is no reference on the signage in respect of motorists who wish to use the electric charging facilities so I cannot determine the breach. The appellant has supplied evidence to demonstrate that they were at the site which was confirmed by the operator’s ANPR cameras and that they were there to take a charge to their electric vehicle, evidence of which has been supplied. Looking at this evidence I can see that it is the same postal address and Hotel location as the Hotel. However, the operator has not made any reference on its signage in regard to customers who are using the electrical charge facilities in respect of charges and the terms and conditions applicable. As the appellant was not a Hotel guest but a patron of another service on site it is it is not possible to determine if the appellant contravened the terms and conditions offered as there are non-specific to motorists charging their electrical vehicles. I do not feel that the additional grounds supplied by the appellant require any further consideration based on the assessment made. I am not satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly, therefore I must allow this appeal.
