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
    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 18th Apr 16, 2:39 PM
    • 25Posts
    • 10Thanks
    camelcx
    UKPC parking ticket at Screwfix customer car park
    • #1
    • 18th Apr 16, 2:39 PM
    UKPC parking ticket at Screwfix customer car park 18th Apr 16 at 2:39 PM
    Hi guys, I'm really a newbie here. Hope i 've read the threads carefully enough, before the post This is the first private parking ticket i've dealt with, so I decided to post it here and keep upgrade the progress.

    Basically, the driver of the car (not to reveal the driver) found a windscreen ticket from UKPC when parking at a Screwfix store outside its working hours last Saturday. The ticketed says the parking exceeded the maximum time of stay and needed to pay a charge of £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.)

    The sign is too small to see for a driver (especially the time limit) and no sign was shown at the entrance of the car park. Will attach a pic of the sign later.

    ATM, i'm trying to write a email to the CEO of Screwfix and waiting for the NTK. Will appeal to UKPC later (25 days?). Hope i'm doing things in the correct order. Cheers

    Update: I decided to add a summary to the post as it is now messed up. Please refer to post 52: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71320697#52
    Last edited by camelcx; 17-09-2016 at 10:27 PM.
Page 3
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 31st Aug 16, 8:33 AM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,272 Thanks
    The Deep
    I agree with PG in post number 2.

    40 replies over an event where a punter deliberately parks in a shopping complex car park out of hours against the landowner's wishes. This is why some of you feel the forum is overloaded.

    Should we not be concentrating of confounding dodgy solicitors rather that abetting trespassers.
    Last edited by The Deep; 31-08-2016 at 8:37 AM.
    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 31st Aug 16, 4:33 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    @The Deep: Well, the car would not be parked there if the landowner had clearly stated parking out of hours is not acceptable. However, if the 'punter' did checked the working hour and got confirmed that parking there wouldn't affect the shop's business since it's closed, should he still be charged by an unnoticeable charge?

    I get it that it might be too long for a single thread and had asked too much from everyone. But I do appreciate everyone's help here and the forum. I may not even have decided to fight the charge without the help and support. However, I did feel this is right to do from the beginning as we fight to make PPCs aware that they cannot put unnoticeable signage and take parking charges rather than being a dodgy trespasser...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Aug 16, 9:54 PM
    • 40,492 Posts
    • 52,389 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    There seems to be a more stroppy git responding to complaints at the BPA nowadays.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    'J' was particularly memorable as being a brick wall of unhelpfulness compared to how nice and FAIR 'S' and 'G' were whenever I contacted them a few times in the past.

    I always knew when I saw her name acknowledging a complaint that a fob-off in favour of the parking firm would follow from 'J'. Not something for such staff to be proud of in a consumer-facing environment where you are actually having the bare-face to defend (very often) clear examples of sharp practice which I knew 'G' would have pushed the PPC about.

    It is now embarrassing to see some of the rubbish coming from the BPA sometimes. We even saw a recent thread where they said something like they would not step in because the PPC 'could have' replied to an appeal and they can't be sure...game over. And I recall another case where the BPA declared that the checks that the CoP requires, before issuing a PCN, no longer required Premier Park to check & find with a view to cancelling at the outset, any PCN planned where it was a single-digit VRN typo.

    And when challenged that the CoP was being watered down, they put up a brick wall.

    Yet a year or two before, Watchdog was told the exact opposite in a case when Excel were in the BPA, their statement was that they 'were required' to carry out checks and cancel a PCN if it was a mere typo in the VRN.

    So, it seems, if it's on the BBC they say one thing but otherwise, in reality - tough.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 31-08-2016 at 10:01 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BobJameson
    • By BobJameson 31st Aug 16, 10:30 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    BobJameson
    We even saw a recent thread where they said something like they would not step in because the PPC 'could have' replied to an appeal and they can't be sure...game over. And I recall another case where the BPA declared that the checks that the CoP requires, before issuing a PCN, no longer required Premier Park to check & find with a view to cancelling at the outset, any PCN planned where it was a single-digit VRN typo.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Who is this "we" ?
    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 8th Sep 16, 4:20 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    Finally my POPLA code for the 02/04 ticket. It was a 'G' who sent me the first reply asking if i responded to UKPC's letters. But it's also the same 'G' get me back with the POPLA code.

    The other ticket is under investigation by a 'J', still no response yet.

    The draft I've put together is as follows (I've changed the POFA part here):


    UKPC, PCN No. xx

    xx/xx/2016

    POPLA Code: xx

    VRN: xxxxxx
    References:

    REF [A] - BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6 Dated: October 2015
    REF[B] - Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    I am the keeper of this vehicle and this is my appeal. I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

    On the above date, the quoted Parking Charge Notice was issued sighting “Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted”. This charge has been appealed directly with UKPC within the allowed 28 days and rejected.

    I challenge this 'PCN' as the keeper of the car. The driver believes that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Furthermore, I understand UKPC do not own the car park and have given me no information about their policy with the landowner to issue such a charge. UKPC have failed to provide such documentation despite being requested to do so.

    I contest the charge and request it is dismissed on the following grounds:

    1. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
    2. NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA 2012
    3. No Landowner Authority

    1. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

    The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of the BPA code of practice.

    (a) Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”
    (b) Section 18.3 that “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

    The signage failed to comply with the above requirements as the terms and conditions regarding parking charge and maximum stay period are printed in unreadable small font-size. The driver cannot read any of these terms from within a car nor during the parking process. Furthermore, the signage is set up on a wall with other posters of advertisements with much larger font-size than even the biggest font-size on the signage, which makes the signage hard to identify. Thus, the signage is neither “easy to find” nor “easy to see/read”.

    (c) Appendix B, Mandatory Entrance Signs, of the BPA CoP states:
    (iv) “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.”

    This requirement is not complied with since enforcement is ‘At All Times’ but the signs are neither lit by lighting nor made of retro-reflective material.


    Quoting a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis, Judges were impressed that (from the evidence they were shown) the signs were large, prominent and with the charge in 'large lettering' throughout the site, which they felt gave the driver every opportunity to discover the terms by which he would later be bound.

    The signage from the operator here is not prominent and with the charge and other terms in unreadable small letter. Therefore, no consideration flowed between the parties and no chance of accepting a contract that a consumer cannot read and does not know is there at all, even when looking around the car park the signs are obscured, sparse and illegible which is hardly compliant with Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' for onerous terms like a disproportionate and unknown 'fine'.

    2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability

    The requirements of Schedule 4 POFA are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt. The BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 6, October 2015) supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers). UKPC has however failed to comply with the statutory requirements as followed.

    a) In regards to paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4, POFA 2012, the 'period of parking' is not 'specified', only the time and date the parking charge was issued. It does not specify the period of parking as demanded under POFA 2012 paragraph 8(2)(a) and paragraph 7(2)(a). In fact the observation time is not specified. The Notice does not state the period of parking, merely the time of the alleged contravention.

    b) The Notice to Keeper does not, as per Paragraph 8(2)(c), state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f), with 7(2)(b) requiring that it “describe(s) those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose”. The “breach” was alleged to be for “parking for longer than the maximum period permitted”, however it does not make clear to the keeper what the maximum period permitted was, and how the driver had (allegedly) exceeded this.

    c) Paragraph 8 (2)(g) requires the operator to inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ fails to offer any discount and is therefore neither in compliance with the strict requirements of POFA nor with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 5, October 2015) paragraph 21.10.

    UKPC have failed to comply and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

    3. No Landowner Authority

    As UKPC do not have proprietary interest in the land then I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, to issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such a contract.

    I do not believe they have such a contract and specifically they must demonstrate that they can enforce this charge in their own name and all of the following from the BPA CoP:

    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Sep 16, 11:48 PM
    • 40,492 Posts
    • 52,389 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Finally my POPLA code for the 02/04 ticket. It was a 'G' who sent me the first reply asking if i responded to UKPC's letters. But it's also the same 'G' get me back with the POPLA code.
    Gemma? Maybe she is covering UKPC complaints as they were banned briefly last year and they need someone robust to shepherd and 'police' them. She's fair, and very good at getting POPLA codes late from the nastier AOS members, like getting blood out of a stone.

    We'll take a look at your POPLA appeal, no rush as long as the code was issued in late August or September (the code would have 240 or a later number as the middle 3 digits, if issued last week, for example). You do not have to use any code checker, as long as it's a number higher than 240 in the middle of the POPLA code then it's OK to use this month.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 9th Sep 16, 2:53 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    Yes, it's her. Since she gets me the POPLA code, i guess she's fair

    I guess i had 251 in the middle start from digit 4 to 6. It's a 10 digit code. The letter says It's issued on 7th Sep. I believe I have 28 days from that. Yes, no rush
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 16, 6:54 PM
    • 40,492 Posts
    • 52,389 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, it's her. Since she gets me the POPLA code, i guess she's fair

    I guess i had 251 in the middle start from digit 4 to 6. It's a 10 digit code. The letter says It's issued on 7th Sep. I believe I have 28 days from that. Yes, no rush
    Originally posted by camelcx
    Yep, we'll take a look over the weekend but do reply if it goes too quiet.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 11th Sep 16, 2:22 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    Could anyone please have a look at my POPLA appeal if that's enough? Many thanks.
    Last edited by camelcx; 16-09-2016 at 10:09 PM.
    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 16th Sep 16, 10:11 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    Hi guys, can I get some advice on my POPLA appeal please? Many thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 16, 12:28 AM
    • 40,492 Posts
    • 52,389 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Take a look at the template POPLA appeal points starting to be added here in 'POPLA Decisions':

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71285691#post71285691

    There is a stronger 'unclear signs' argument there and also a new extra point (for all cases where the appellant is a keeper and already arguing 'no keeper liability' like you are) which is about the keeper appellant not being identified as the individual driver liable for the charge.

    And you have stated there were issues with the Notice to Keeper when compared to para 8 of Schedule 4 of the POFA but I don't think you've ever mentioned receiving one? If you have NOT received a NTK then you want this instead of your point #2:

    A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    UKPC have attempted to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. However, they have failed because they have not fulfilled the second condition for keeper liability and as a result, UKPC have no lawful authority to pursue any unpaid parking charges from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served, then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’


    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As UKPC have evidently failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’, not only have they chosen to flout the strict timelines set out in PoFA 2012, but have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability.
    Also re this issue:

    I received debt collector letter asking for £160 regarding the 16/04 PCN (which was £100...). I've never received a POPLA code before this. I believe I should complain to BPA...
    ...I would say you should include an extra point about a clear breach of the BPA CoP in terms of not stopping work on a case and sending it to debt collectors even though you had appealed and were awaiting your POPLA code for months. Mention your BPA complaint and attach as proof, the email trail from Gemma.

    And is there scope for a point saying something like this:

    'Inadequate photo evidence that a contravention occurred nor the location where the car was parked'
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-09-2016 at 12:42 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 17th Sep 16, 10:19 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    Sorry, my bad. The thread is pretty messed up. I'll make a summary here and edit the original post to make it clearer. There's 2 tickets in this thread. One is on 02/04 and the other on 16/04.

    For the 02/04/2016 ticket:
    02/04: Didn't receive a windscreen PCN. It might have been lost as it was raining heavily that night.
    06/05: NTK received (within 56 day period). It shows 100 non-discounted charge.
    17/05, 12/07: Template letters received asking for driver information.
    17/08: Informed UKPC of address change online.
    18/08: Another template letter.
    01/09: Complained to AOS and got POPLA code back from Gemma on 07/09.

    For the 16/04/2016 ticket:
    16/04: Got the PCN.
    11/05: Appealed to UKPC (day 25).
    17/05: Template letter received.
    13/07: NTK received (Later than 56 days).
    28/07: Another NTK(final reminder) received.
    15/08: Debt recovery letter received.
    18/08: Complained to AOS with several email exchange... Joanna replied at last on 25/08 saying that she will contact the operator and once received will advise accordingly.
    19/09: PCN cancelled after investigation

    I'm preparing the POPLA appeal for the 02/04 ticket now. Will post an updated version after I put together the new one according to CM's suggestions. Cheers.
    Last edited by camelcx; 19-09-2016 at 2:49 PM.
    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 18th Sep 16, 5:31 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    Here's new version of the POPLA appeal. Pretty much copy and paste from the template. I've added a link to the 1st point of signage and written a bit about the last point. All advices welcome. Many thanks.

    UKPC, PCN No. xx

    xx/xx/2016

    POPLA Code: xx

    VRN: xxxxxx

    I am the keeper of this vehicle and this is my appeal. I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

    On the above date, the quoted Parking Charge Notice was issued sighting “Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted”. This charge has been appealed directly with UKPC within the allowed 28 days and rejected.

    I challenge this 'PCN' as the keeper of the car. The driver believes that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Furthermore, I understand UKPC do not own the car park and have given me no information about their policy with the landowner to issue such a charge. UKPC have failed to provide such documentation despite being requested to do so.

    I contest the charge and request it is dismissed on the following grounds:

    1.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
    2.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    3.The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability
    4.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    5.Inadequate photo evidence that a contravention occurred nor the location where the car was parked

    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

    Here is the sign under dispute in this case:

    http://s430.photobucket.com/user/camelcx/media/forum_zpstgekklrn.jpg.html

    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.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability

    The requirements of Schedule 4 POFA are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt. The BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 6, October 2015) supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers). UKPC has however failed to comply with the statutory requirements as followed.

    a) In regards to paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4, POFA 2012, the 'period of parking' is not 'specified', only the time and date the parking charge was issued. It does not specify the period of parking as demanded under POFA 2012 paragraph 8(2)(a) and paragraph 7(2)(a). In fact the observation time is not specified. The Notice does not state the period of parking, merely the time of the alleged contravention.

    b) The Notice to Keeper does not, as per Paragraph 8(2)(c), state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f), with 7(2)(b) requiring that it “describe(s) those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose”. The “breach” was alleged to be for “parking for longer than the maximum period permitted”, however it does not make clear to the keeper what the maximum period permitted was, and how the driver had (allegedly) exceeded this.

    c) Paragraph 8 (2)(g) requires the operator to inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ fails to offer any discount and is therefore neither in compliance with the strict requirements of POFA nor with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 5, October 2015) paragraph 21.10.

    UKPC have failed to comply and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

    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

    Inadequate photo evidence that a contravention occurred nor the location where the car was parked

    The photographic evidences provided by the operator shows no parking time, merely photos taken at two different time slots. This does not prove the car has been parked in the area for the entire peroid of time. Therefore, I put this operator to strict proof that the parking event has actually happened for the full period of time.
    Also form the photographic evicences provided in the online link along with the notice to keeper, one cannot determine any terms had been breached nor any charges could apply. There's no readable terms and conditions regarding the "maximum parking period" nor an amount of the parking charge.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Sep 16, 12:55 AM
    • 40,492 Posts
    • 52,389 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks good so far now. Don't forget to tell POPLA about the BPA breach of the CoP and the complaint you had to make, as suggested before make this into an appeal point:

    I received debt collector letter asking for £160 regarding the 16/04 PCN (which was £100...). I've never received a POPLA code before this. I believe I should complain to BPA...
    ...I would say you should include an extra point about a clear breach of the BPA CoP in terms of not stopping work on a case and sending it to debt collectors even though you had appealed and were awaiting your POPLA code for months. Mention your BPA complaint and attach as proof, the email trail from Gemma.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 14th Oct 16, 1:40 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    It's a WIN. I think neither of UKPC and POPLA had looked through the appeal, as UKPC simply gave up on this. Thanks everybody especially Coupon-mad. So grateful.

    POPLA reply here:

    Dear XXX

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXX.

    UK Parking Control 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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Oct 16, 2:55 PM
    • 10,998 Posts
    • 16,405 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Nice one.

    I expect their knees buckled under the 'weight' of the appeal. 3,000 words and they're done!
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    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.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 14th Oct 16, 4:27 PM
    • 1,064 Posts
    • 1,318 Thanks
    Castle
    Nice one.

    I expect their knees buckled under the 'weight' of the appeal. 3,000 words and they're done!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    More likely "no contest, no fee"; more time and money to spend on harassing easier targets.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Oct 16, 5:19 PM
    • 40,492 Posts
    • 52,389 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's a WIN. I think neither of UKPC and POPLA had looked through the appeal, as UKPC simply gave up on this. Thanks everybody especially Coupon-mad. So grateful.

    POPLA reply here:

    Dear XXX

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXX.

    UK Parking Control 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
    Originally posted by camelcx
    Great news!

    A very nice example of a UKPC POPLA appeal for people to find when searching.

    The War and Peace version of a POPLA appeal strikes again!

    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

2,812Posts Today

7,430Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @c_newbery: @MartinSLewis Can't bring myself to vote for option A because of lack of apostrophe - some things are too precious! #grammar?

  • MSE weekly email: Soap&Glory, Urgent 2YR cheap energy, free Tesco pts, cheap Easyjet, free TSB £100, £52 Ray-Bans https://t.co/bS4J70hBbx

  • Today's twitter poll: Is it acceptable to use bad grammar in tweets in order to reduce character length?

  • Follow Martin