Parkingeye and Britannia parking

Hi, I have sent the popla appeal off for parking eye, as that was the easier to do via the templates and threads.
The Britannia one is harder as I can't find anything in the templates and threads for putting.in car reg plate & paying by c.card getting it authorised then asking for a receipt but the machine voiding it without my noticing. The machine was so hard to work out, and I have since taken pictures of the Signage to find the college have put up their own signs on how to use the machine in laymans terms. I have the receipt, which shows times amount "paid" & reg plate. Now in my appeal I said I parked the car (not driving just parking) does this go against me in appealing to popla? I am just tempted to send a chq for the 4 hrs parked as I'm not sure I could win this. I have spent hours trawling thru info on here but can't find a case like mine......

Please can someone check this appeal to popla. I am not sure this is all correct but have taken what coupon-mad has said in the post above. Thank you in advance.


POPLA Ref:

I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from Britannia Parking at Southend College.

To protect the driver, they have not been named.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
1. Pay machine working instructions unclear and unable to follow.
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
3. Inadequate signage


1. The driver spent roughly 5 minutes trying to work out how to use the pay machine at the underground car park. The driver said that a lady was also trying to pay for her car park at the next pay machine along side the one they were using, and she was having a meltdown as she couldn't work out how to use the machine. Both this lady and the driver asked a man, that came into the car park, if he knew how to use the machine-and he told them that the machines were new machines and a lot of people were having problems trying to pay as the instructions are not clear. The driver eventually worked out how to input the car registration plate and proceeded to pay by credit card. The driver then obtained a receipt by pressing the button on the machine under the word "receipt" because they had so much trouble trying to pay, they got it as proof just in case there was an issue with parking. The driver then proceeded about their business and returned within the 4 hours that they had paid for. Please see photo of the receipt that was issued.

On appealing to Britannia, the receipt was forwarded to them as proof. Britannia then said that this is not a receipt and is in fact a void receipt, rendering the payment void. However, there was no button on the machine to void the transaction, and why would the driver go to the effort of trying to work out how to use the machine, as the instructions were completely useless, input their card details, reg plate and payment for 4 hours only to void the transaction? But still return before the 4 hours were up?


2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA, in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all areas and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

May I bring to your attention POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found signs inadequate:

''The signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs. Please see photos of the signs, and note how small the lettering is, the bottom half of the signs is so small it is unreadable. The instructions on how to use the machines and the photo of the machine, you can clearly see how complicated the machine looks.

My son attends that college. He took the photos of the machines and signage for me. I asked him to return to get a clearer picture as the pictures were quite dark, he said that is how the machine and signage are, in shadow. He also noted on his return that the college had added extra instructions on how to use the machines, presumable because they have had numerous complaints. Please note in this photo that it states "confirm if a receipt is required". The driver did just that, and this is what has happened because of that.


Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully


Registered Keeper.

the driver had to wait for their credit card statement and no the payment didn't go through. The transaction did get authorised by the card reader, but it seems that by pressing the "receipt" button the transaction was voided by the machine.