The parking operator issued the parking charge notice because the motorist had failed to display a valid permit.
The appellant explained that they had sold the vehicle over three weeks prior to the date of the parking event.
POPLA examined the evidence provided by both parties.
The parking operator submitted a file to support their version of events which included copies of the signs at the car park, images of the vehicle parked on the day, and examples of valid permit documentation.
The timestamped images from the operator clearly showed the vehicle did not have a valid permit on display on the day of the parking contravention.
The appellant provided a copy of a letter from the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) acknowledging their letter confirming they no longer owned the vehicle. However, the letter from the DVLA was dated four months after the date of the parking event and referred to a letter from the appellant send to the DVLA two weeks earlier.
POPLA considered the timeline of events in respect of the sale of the vehicle, the parking event and the notification to the DVLA of the vehicle sale. The motorist notified the DVLA on 20 April that they had sold the car on 1 January. The parking event occurred on 13 February.
The Parking Operator had sought details of the keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA shortly after the parking event and the DVLA had confirmed that the appellant was the registered keeper. This is why the parking operator pursued the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle.
The motorist provided no evidence of the sale, no details of the new owner and no record of the V5C document they sent to the DVLA containing the new keeper’s details. The only evidence the motorist provided was the acknowledgement letter from the DVLA. Further, when the motorist appealed to the parking operator, the operator asked for details of to whom they had sold the car. The motorist did not provide details.
POPLA refused the motorist’s appeal. The motorist provided limited detail about the sale of the vehicle and we considered the evidence provided by the operator sufficient to demonstrate that it was pursuing the party that was most likely to be the keeper at the time of the parking event. We were satisfied that the parking operator had followed the correct process to transfer liability for the Parking Charge Notice from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.