Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 139
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 1:22 AM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Tower Road NEWQUAY

    POPLA decision with POPLA code, Assessor finds that 13 minutes to leave this large car park in Summer is perfectly reasonable and within grace periods policy:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5691633&page=2

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor Name [Removed]
    6062267320

    29.9.17


    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was on site for longer than the time paid for.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant says that the operator has not provided a sufficient grace period for the driver to read the signage within the car park or to exit the site following the parking period. • They say that they believe the operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land and they require seeing an un-redacted copy of the contract between itself and the landowner. • The appellant says that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the charge amount.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly.

    The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the time paid for. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 17:44 and exited the site at 19:02. A total stay of one hour and 17 minutes.

    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says that the operator has not provided a sufficient grace period for the driver to read the signage within the car park or to exit the site following the parking period.

    The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states in section 13.2, “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”.

    The parking operator has provided evidence, which shows that the appellant purchased one hours parking time at 17:49. This is four minutes after the appellant’s vehicle has entered the car park. I am satisfied that this falls within a reasonable grace period to enter the site, find a space and make a payment for parking.

    The BPA Code of Practice continues in section 13.4, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”.

    From the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle exited the site at 19:02. This is 13 minutes after the parking contract expired. Due to the site in question, the time of year and the appellant’s explanation that there were pedestrians in the roadway, along with people carrying surfboards and other traffic, I am satisfied that 13 minutes falls within a reasonable period to exit the car park. As I am satisfied that the duration of the overstay falls within the grace periods permitted with a parking contract, I can only conclude that in this instance, the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

    As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam2; 02-10-2017 at 11:58 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Kshah786
    • By Kshah786 2nd Oct 17, 7:45 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Kshah786
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664329&page=3#topofpage

    Won against CPP at coventry hospital
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 3rd Oct 17, 7:27 PM
    • 7,168 Posts
    • 6,219 Thanks
    The Deep
    I am not sure it is irrelevant Mr C. It may well help sway a DJ who is unfamiliar with the case.
    Last edited by The Deep; 03-10-2017 at 7:34 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 4th Oct 17, 10:15 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 53 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72981934#post72981934

    Operator: Key Parking Solutions

    POPLA assessment and decision
    26/09/2017
    Verification Code
    5102357501
    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name


    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver’s pay and display ticket had expired.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice has not sent a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

    The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority.

    The appellant says that no contract was entered into between the operator and the driver or registered keeper.

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

    The appellant states that the operator gave an insufficient grace period.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver’s pay and display ticket had expired. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number, XXXX XXX parked at the site on 12 June 2017 at 12:51.

    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

    For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to.

    As a Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued before a NtK then the NtK will need to comply with section 8 of PoFA 2012.

    In POFA 2012 it states under section 8 2 (f) “warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.”

    In reference to this, the NTK that was dated 8 August 2017 states, “If the balance of £124.00 remains outstanding after 28 days, the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges and any additional charges associated with recovery.” The NTK does not confirm the correct timescale. As a result, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the regulations set out in PoFA 2012. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
    • mr_megs
    • By mr_megs 4th Oct 17, 10:47 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mr_megs
    Operator: Anchor Security Services, trading as Care Parking.

    Thread detailing appeal with the templates I used: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73214014#post73214014

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor NameLinda McMillan
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked outside of tram hours.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is as follows: • He states that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012): • He states that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver: • He states that the railway land is not “relevant land” and as such there is no evidence that the operator has the permission of the landowner to issue charges on this land: • He states that there is no breach of byelaws. The appellant has included a document expanding on the above as evidence.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA2012 The operator has provided a copy of the NTK sent. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that: “The notice must – f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”. Having reviewed the NTK, I note the wording states “If after 28 days we have not received the full payment, we have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle”. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012. I can only conclude that on this occasion, the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Oct 17, 11:07 AM
    • 14,947 Posts
    • 23,473 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I note the wording states “If after 28 days we have not received the full payment, we have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle”.
    Well if their NtK literally says that, they’ve got no chance. I won’t point out the obvious in case they’re reading this. (Shakes head in incredulity!).
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • mummyof4smalls
    • By mummyof4smalls 4th Oct 17, 12:10 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    mummyof4smalls
    POPLA DECISION- SUCCESSFUL v ECP GATWICK AIRPORT
    Many thanks to all those who helped. Much appreciated.
    POPLA ASSESSOR- V. Worrell
    Date 4.10.17
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has raised numerous grounds of appeal, but my assessment will focus solely on whether the PCN issued by the operator is compliant with PoFA. When a parking operator is pursuing a keeper as liable for a charge, it must satisfy the requirements of PoFA. Within PoFA 2012 it states at Paragraph 9(2)(f) that the notice to keeper must: “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” As such, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’. Within PoFA 2012, it further states that: “a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.” Therefore, it is clear that the date the Notice to Keeper was posted is the key date in determining when the 28-day period begins. Having considered the Notice to Keeper sent in this instance, the wording used is as follows: “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act.” However, I note that the “Date Issued” referred to above is not the date the Notice to Keeper was posted and is instead, the date of the parking event. As such, it is clear that while the operator has attempted to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, its reference to the “Date Issued” is incorrect and the impact of this is that the keeper would not be given the correct length of time to provide details of the driver. On this basis, I can only conclude that the Notice to Keeper would fail to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012.” Upon consideration of this evidence, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Oct 17, 6:42 PM
    • 14,947 Posts
    • 23,473 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    As such, it is clear that while the operator has attempted to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, its reference to the “Date Issued” is incorrect and the impact of this is that the keeper would not be given the correct length of time to provide details of the driver. On this basis, I can only conclude that the Notice to Keeper would fail to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012.
    Off to the dunces' corner then for ECP if that is their ‘attempt to comply with PoFA’!

    Well done on beating them mo4s.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • andreihoff
    • By andreihoff 5th Oct 17, 4:19 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    andreihoff
    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to failure to park within a marked bay.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal these are: The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. There is also no entry sign visible when entering the street. This charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease - as decided by the Appeal case of 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016, which also held that the Beavis case does not apply to this sort of car park. The driver was simply unloading furniture into his flat which is not considered parking. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. They believe that the contract One Parking have, allows for unloading if the hazard lights were on, and the driver assures you that they were. One Parking are put to strict proof that (i) the hazard lights were not on, and (ii) that the contract with the landowner, shown in its entirety, does not in fact have the common clause found in their 'contracts' that states a car is exempt if loading/unloading with hazard lights on. If One Parking Solutions want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and One Parking Solutions have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place. The Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that OPS have complied with these BPA Code requirements for Notice to Keeper so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. They would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and the black and white photos. By close examination of the photographs, they are added as an overlay on-top of the photos in the lower left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing Software to add these with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has issued a PCN due to failure to park within a marked bay. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in POFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the Driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of POFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of POFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant. Section 9 (2) advises that the notice must: (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; From the evidence provided to me, I can see that the Notice to Keeper states, “As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are now invited to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us (in writing using the form overleaf) of the name of the driver and a valid current address of service for the driver and pass this notice on to the driver. Should the registered keeper provide either an unserviceable name and/or address of the driver and/or the driver denies they were in charge of the vehicle at the time of the event, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment for this parking charge with reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver at the time of event”. However, I am not satisfied that this meets the requirements as detailed by section 9 (f) of the PoFA 2012. As such, I am unable to confirm whether the operator issued the Notice to Keeper correctly.

    Original thread
    • Keirday
    • By Keirday 7th Oct 17, 1:33 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Keirday
    Keir
    Hi,
    I buy a weekly parking ticket at an APCOA multi storey, I got 2 tickets in one week even though the warde knew I had paid for aweekly., I appealed to them and POPLA who have also given me a negative decision. I sent the following appeal:
    ["With reference to the above tickets, issued on 11/08/2017 and 14/08/2017. My fist ticket had slipped down the dashboard under the windscreen and the second had blown over to the reverse side.
    As you can see from the enclosed photocopy I did pay for my parking, as I normally do on a weekly basis. This has happened once before and I have explained to your parking warden that I always pay for my ticket and display it clearly, I cannot be blamed if whilst I am away the [/I]ticket moves (wind through the vents or movement as cars pass by, I wish I knew). I asked him that if it happened again to please leave a note on my car asking to call in his office to show my ticket rather than issue me a ticket when he obviously knows that I have bought a weekly ticket, he must know this because it says so on the ticket, he also knows my car as it is quite distinctive and I have pointed it out to him.
    I am obviously a regular, paying customer so please show a little good will as I have now provided evidence of my purchased ticket"
    I am at my wits end now, surely it is a fault of theirs by issuing tickets from their machines that are not properly displayable, i.e. no sticky back. Acts of God I cannot help.....
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Oct 17, 1:42 PM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,004 Thanks
    Quentin
    You should start your own thread if you need to after reading the newbies faq thread near the top of he forum.


    Please delete your post from this thread!!
    • apcl73
    • By apcl73 8th Oct 17, 3:38 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    apcl73
    Hi

    Just wanted to let you know I won my POPLA appeal:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5687900

    Thanks
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 13th Oct 17, 4:34 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 68 Thanks
    bergkamp
    Britannia Europa Gatwick Hotel - ParkingEye.
    Appealed an invoice for a work colleague. Sent the BPA member first appeal template, from the newbies thread, to PE .


    Rejected with POPLA code issued .


    POPLA appeal as below;




    POPLA Ref: 6062477250


    As registered keeper of vehicle reg: XXX XXXX I am not liable for this charge.


    Here is my POPLA appeal for consideration.


    • Signage
    • Landowner Authority
    • ANPR accuracy and Compliance

      Signage
    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces 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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    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.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are

    unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was 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, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''


    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    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:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.









    Landowner Authority


    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 but 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









    ANPR accuracy and Compliance


    I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

    In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
    ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
    21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
    21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    • be registered with the Information Commissioner
    • keep to the Data Protection Act
    • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    • follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

    At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.






    Mr XXX XXXX



    Dear XXX XXXX

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 6062477250.

    Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team

    ET6116/001





    Two weeks from entering POPLA appeal to cancellation....
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Oct 17, 4:51 PM
    • 14,947 Posts
    • 23,473 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Good win bergkamp, but a risky appeal. PE signage is usually ‘spot on’, in fact it was the clarity of their signage that provided much of the tipping point weight at the Beavis Supreme Court case. Unless their signage at the particular site of the parking event was missing or utterly woeful - both unlikely - then I think you might have dodged a bullet with that one!

    The ANPR accuracy and compliance is now viewed here as a ‘dead in the water’ appeal point as POPLA have been accepting PPC general statements that their systems are fully serviced and accurate at face value. Another bullet dodged!

    Leaving just your one other appeal point - Landowner Authority. There must have been something quite amiss with PE paperwork on this, otherwise they would surely have contested.

    In summary, good win, albeit stepping over very thin ice in the process. A win’s a win!

    Hope you don’t mind me saying this for the benefit of NEWBIES - this is not a recommended appeal for copying and pasting - unless you’re a ‘high roller’.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 13th Oct 17, 6:16 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 68 Thanks
    bergkamp
    To save clogging the POPLA thread, replies on this thread;

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5727057#1
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 14th Oct 17, 2:43 PM
    • 3,333 Posts
    • 3,375 Thanks
    DoaM
    Good win bergkamp, but a risky appeal. PE signage is usually ‘spot on’, in fact it was the clarity of their signage that provided much of the tipping point weight at the Beavis Supreme Court case.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Unless it is signage in an Aldi car park, for example ... such signage is FAR from 'spot on'.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • prjohnsonnn10
    • By prjohnsonnn10 15th Oct 17, 8:33 PM
    • 94 Posts
    • 103 Thanks
    prjohnsonnn10
    Chiltern Railway : APCOA are the new operator after MET have been kicked out and are now falling foul of any robust POPLA appeal citing railway byelaws apply and not relevant land. They are refusing to defend bascially.


    Dear xxxxx

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 0512637003.

    APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team

    ET6116/001
    • thegentleway
    • By thegentleway 17th Oct 17, 12:20 PM
    • 97 Posts
    • 73 Thanks
    thegentleway
    No thread associated with this one but I didn't receive a NTK. Thanks for the help and great advice on this forum.

    Liberty Services 358 (Car parking partnership)
    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Alexandra Wilcock

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The appellant failed to display a valid parking permit. The appellant displayed an invalid parking permit. The appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. She says the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. The appellant advised that the signage on site is not clear, and does not state what the sum of the parking charge is. She states that the wording on the signage forbids parking. As such, there is no offer to park, meaning there is no contract. The appellant states the operator have failed to provide evidence to demonstrate it has the appropriate landowner authority, in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. It is clear from the operator’s case file that the Parking Charge Notice was “issued to vehicle” on the date in question. There is no evidence to suggest that the operator transferred liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore liable for the charge. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
    Last edited by thegentleway; 17-10-2017 at 1:41 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Oct 17, 12:31 PM
    • 14,947 Posts
    • 23,473 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done on winning. It’s a pity you weren’t able to flush POPLA out on the ‘Forbidding Signs - No Contract to Park’ issue. Where they can, they’ll avoid the potentially contentious points. Still, a win is a win.

    Which PPC please?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • thegentleway
    • By thegentleway 17th Oct 17, 1:40 PM
    • 97 Posts
    • 73 Thanks
    thegentleway
    Well done on winning. It’s a pity you weren’t able to flush POPLA out on the ‘Forbidding Signs - No Contract to Park’ issue. Where they can, they’ll avoid the potentially contentious points. Still, a win is a win.

    Which PPC please?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thank you! Wouldn't have won without all the great advice on here.
    PPC = Liberty Services 358 (Car parking partnership)
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

302Posts Today

3,512Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin