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
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 6th Feb 17, 4:34 PM
    • 54Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Pesky Parking Eye - Should I or Shouldnt I pay?
    • #1
    • 6th Feb 17, 4:34 PM
    Pesky Parking Eye - Should I or Shouldnt I pay? 6th Feb 17 at 4:34 PM
    Parking Eye Charge

    I just wanted to ask you guys for a bit of help if possible.

    My wife has just received a PCN by Parking Eye for parking in a car park space by the Red Jet Ferry in Southampton.

    The PCN shows 2 images of our car arriving and departing.

    The fine is for 100 however, it would be reduced to 60 if we pay in 14 days.

    I will go with whatever you guys say as I trust you implicitly, if you say pay I will do it. If you say appeal I will do that.

    Thanks for reading.
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 06-02-2017 at 6:21 PM.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 6th Feb 17, 4:53 PM
    • 38,944 Posts
    • 77,709 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 6th Feb 17, 4:53 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Feb 17, 4:53 PM
    It is not a fine.

    The Driver should have checked the signs and paid if it was required. I'm not sure why anyone would park on someone's private property and not check to see if it was OK, or what they should have paid.

    However, this can be appealed but you should first edit your post to remove any information about who did what.

    The Driver Parked, The Keeper got a parking charge.

    You should then read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES that is on the same page where you made your first post, and send the BPA appeal template in blue you will find there. Copy and past and send. Do not reveal who was driving.

    You should also check to see if the car park is covered by byelaws as that will give you an extra point for your second stage appeal.

    Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?

    Please also tell us the date of the alleged event and the date The Keeper received the PCN/NTK.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 17, 5:12 PM
    • 45,879 Posts
    • 58,876 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 6th Feb 17, 5:12 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Feb 17, 5:12 PM
    Is it worth appealing on the grounds of the fact that the car park was empty and we didn't know that the car park was a parking eye one. Or should we just pay up and chalk it off as an experience.
    Neither.

    The registered keeper appeals using the template in the NEWBIES thread, that's why it's at the top of this board, telling newbies to please read those FAQS first. Do answer this - it is important:

    Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 6th Feb 17, 6:19 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    • #4
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:19 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:19 PM
    It is not a fine.

    Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?

    Please also tell us the date of the alleged event and the date The Keeper received the PCN/NTK.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    The PCN says

    Payment to be made within 28 days of date issued - 01/03/2017

    "This parking charge is discounted to 60.00
    if paid within 14 days of the date issued 15/02/2017
    After this date, the full parking charge amount will be owed.

    The date of the alleged event was 22 January 2017

    AFTER 29 DAYS FROM THE DATE GIVEN (WHICH IS 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 DRIVERS NAME OR CURRENT ADDRESS OF THE DRIVER WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOVER ANY UNPAID PART OF THE PARKING CHARGE FROM YOU.
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 06-02-2017 at 6:25 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Feb 17, 6:22 PM
    • 14,013 Posts
    • 17,290 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:22 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:22 PM
    but does it have that "white space" or does it mention POFA2012 instead ?

    Quote:
    Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?
    people cannot help you if you dont answer their specific questions
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 6th Feb 17, 6:47 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    • #6
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:47 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:47 PM
    but does it have that "white space" or does it mention POFA2012 instead ?



    people cannot help you if you dont answer their specific questions
    Originally posted by Redx
    Apologies it says

    POFA 2012
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Feb 17, 6:49 PM
    • 14,013 Posts
    • 17,290 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:49 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Feb 17, 6:49 PM
    right , so it DOES have that POFA2012 wording on it

    I would have thought that this was "not relevant land" and so covered by byelaws ?

    therefore POFA2013 would not apply if byelaws cover the land
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 6th Feb 17, 7:02 PM
    • 516 Posts
    • 1,341 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #8
    • 6th Feb 17, 7:02 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Feb 17, 7:02 PM
    IIRC, the Red Jet Ferry Terminal is in the Town Quay area. Check out the ABP Port of Southampton map here:

    http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Southampton%20Map%202014.pdf

    If the vehicle was parked within the Port's boundaries then as Redx has pointed out, ABP Byelaws will be applicable. This is a good thing because it means that ParkingEye have no right to use POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 6th Feb 17, 7:07 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    • #9
    • 6th Feb 17, 7:07 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Feb 17, 7:07 PM

    If the vehicle was parked within the Port's boundaries then as Redx has pointed out, ABP Byelaws will be applicable. This is a good thing because it means that ParkingEye have no right to use POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    Where the alleged event may have happened

    http://imgur.com/a/GZ7U7



    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 06-02-2017 at 7:10 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 17, 10:10 PM
    • 45,879 Posts
    • 58,876 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Got to be covered by byelaws but this will need specific wording because POPLA keep having a major brain fart about 'relevant land' such as here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5539035

    You can use that example POPLA appeal as a base BUT you will need something in POPLA's face right at the start that links to the Byelaws themselves as evidence and quotes them about motor vehicles/parking and says something like:


    Even if this parking operator states they are not issuing this charge under byelaws (but instead under contract law) POPLA Assessor please note that your Lead Adjudicator confirmed in December 2016 that all Assessors were to receive refresher training after a series of errors where Assessors mistakenly thought that 'not using byelaws' on Port/Harbour land meant they could assume this meant the land wasn't in fact covered by those byelaws.

    This is always an error by POPLA and frankly, it needs to stop in 2017. POPLA Assessor, please note and with all due respect please check with the Lead Adjudicator before making this decision, if you mistakenly believe that Port land covered by byelaws is suddenly 'relevant land' and open to keeper liability under the POFA, just because a parking operator uses contract law and doesn't mention those byelaws.

    Non-relevant Port & Harbour land remains non-relevant land, regardless. This means keeper liability is not possible under the POFA under any circumstances, no matter what the operator may say in their evidence, regardless of PCN or signage wording.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 6th Feb 17, 11:01 PM
    • 516 Posts
    • 1,341 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    When you get to the POPLA stage, you can quote this case where POPLA determined that Town Quay was not relevant land because parking of vehicles (including cars) was covered by the ABP byelaws.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71378601&postcount=2372
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 7th Feb 17, 8:35 AM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Shall I go ahead and send the BPA appeal template to Parking Eye and then just wait for the rejection?

    Thanks for all your replies to this by the way
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Feb 17, 11:37 AM
    • 14,013 Posts
    • 17,290 Thanks
    Redx
    Shall I go ahead and send the BPA appeal template to Parking Eye and then just wait for the rejection?

    Thanks for all your replies to this by the way
    Originally posted by Jason.rangou
    always

    without question

    should not even have needed to be asked , its why its in the sticky threads and you cannot get a POPLA code until they reject it (its in the rejection)

    if you do add anything , add a line saying the land is not relevant land for POFA2012 as it is covered by byelaws

    no naming the driver, shoose KEEPER as long as its not a leased vehicle
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 7th Feb 17, 5:17 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    always
    if you do add anything , add a line saying the land is not relevant land for POFA2012 as it is covered by byelaws

    no naming the driver, shoose KEEPER as long as its not a leased vehicle
    Originally posted by Redx
    I have just sent the appeal via email and added the line above, as well as not naming driver. I chose 'none of the above' as the excerp in the template says

    'Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the BPA Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, for example) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal in your contract, for a sum not less than 250 for any Data Protection Act breach.


    I will let you know once I have received my rejection response

    Many thanks for all your help
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 14th Mar 17, 1:49 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Hello everyone that is reading this post Good Afternoon to you.

    I have just got back from work and I have a letter from the dreaded Parking eye. Unfortunately my appeal has been rejected...Not entirely a shock....I now have a POPLA REF and would like to know if possible how to draft an appeal letter. I am not very skilled in this area therefore, any advice you could provide would be very much appreciated.

    Thank you for your time and patience with me.

    Edit - I have looked at the sticky here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822 but I am exceptionally baffled as I am not too great with being able to understand huge walls of text, I hope you understand. Thanks
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 14-03-2017 at 1:56 PM.
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 15th Mar 17, 8:40 AM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Hi, I haven't heard from anyone yesterday?, so I assume that is because you get lots of people asking the same thing. That said I asked a friend to come over and help me yesterday to make sense of the letter to the POPLA here is what we have so far

    Parking Charge Notice – xxxxxx/xxxxxx
    Issued by ParkingEye
    POPLA Ref: xxxxxxxxxx

    I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice (PCN) sent to myself as registered keeper of a vehicle, in respect of an alleged breach of parking conditions at Southampton Town Quay (short stay) car park on 20th July 2016.

    I appeal to you that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the following points:

    1) Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to Non-relevant land where Byelaws apply
    2) No proof that the individual they are pursuing is the driver liable/The operator’s PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
    3) ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the mandatory delivery timescales laid down by POFA
    4) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges
    5) 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

    1 Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to statutory control

    Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 states that in this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

    a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
    b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.


    Although ParkingEye’s PCN makes no mention of Southampton Town Quay being subject to statutory control, parking at this site is subject to Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (“the ABP Byelaws”); this location is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012.

    I include with my submission a copy of the ABP Byelaws, drawing POPLA’s attention to Part IV (Goods and Road and Rail Traffic), in particular the terms of Paragraphs 37 and 39 which specifically refer to leaving vehicles unattended (i.e. parking) thereby confirming that parking on the Port of Southampton’s land is subject to statutory control.

    I also draw POPLA's attention to the map on Page 20 of the ABP Byelaws which confirms that Southampton Town Quay lies within the boundaries of the Port of Southampton for the purpose of the ABP Byelaws. I also include a more detailed ABP map which defines more clearly the boundaries of the Port of Southampton.

    POPLA has previously determined that Southampton Town Quay is not relevant land; I refer you to POPLA case ref.6060755093.

    Therefore ParkingEye has no lawful right to rely upon POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper.

    2 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.

    POFA Para 9(2)(f) states that the Notice to Keeper must

    ‘warn the keeper that if after the period of 28 days […]
    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges […] 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 have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid’.


    As the Parking Charge Notice received in this instance does not include this warning, the operator 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. This is a clear and strict requirement under the relevant legislation that ParkingEye have not complied with and as such cannot rely upon to hold me liable as keeper.

    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.''

    3 ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the mandatory delivery timescales laid down by POFA

    Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (4) (b), the Notice to Keeper was not delivered within the relevant period as defined in Sch.4 Para 9 (5).

    Date of alleged contravention was Wednesday 20th July 2016.

    Notice must be delivered within a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, ie by Wednesday 3rd August (POFA Para 9 (5))

    A notice sent by post is to be presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted (POFA Para 9 (6)). As the Date of Issue on the Parking Charge Notice is Wednesday 3rd August the delivery date can be presumed to be no earlier than Friday 5th August 1916, 16 days after the alleged incident.

    The Notice to Keeper was delivered outside the 14 day maximum period allowed. As such, Keeper liability cannot apply.

    POPLA please note that this 14 day period is ONLY that stipulated in the POFA 2012 and has nothing to do with any other 14 day period – eg there is a mere guideline ‘target’ mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice regarding posting PCNs after receiving DVLA data. This was the subject of an erroneous POPLA decision in July 1016 by an Assessor with initials R.E. and that procedural error is the subject of a formal complaint already in the public domain. POPLA Assessor, please consider ONLY the POFA for this appeal point as that is the applicable law and the Notice to Keeper is, as a matter of irrefutable fact, deemed delivered too late.

    4 ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

    I do not believe that ParkingEye has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

    I contend that ParkingEye merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require ParkingEye to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits ParkingEye to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

    For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). A witness statement would not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the services provided would not be stated in such a vague template document.

    5 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 is the Town Quay sign:

    http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/7/6/1/5/6/webimg/917047138_o.jpg

    Please note, this sign was NOT at the entrance to the car park but some way in, quite high up above a pay machine in the Red zone (permit parking) area. The wording on this sign is crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background, with far too much information for a motorist to take in while driving past, and the wording of the terms and conditions at the bottom of the sign is so small it is virtually illegible. 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.

    Of course, this picture was taken in full daylight, and would be very different at around midnight, the time of the alleged incident, as can be seen here:

    http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/7/6/1/5/6/webimg/917046438_o.jpg

    This picture was taken from a car driving past towards the main car park, and to see it the driver had to turn their head through 90 degrees. Additionally, although the sign is illuminated by a spotlight at night, the glare from that spotlight makes it very difficult to read.

    There are neither full terms nor the sum of the parking charge displayed at the entrance to the site, or in one half of the main car park, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. 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, most signs do not clearly mention the parking charge.

    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.''

    The terms, where displayed at all, are displayed inadequately, in letters approximately a quarter inch high, with the charge in letters just one inch high:

    http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/7/6/1/5/6/webimg/917047703_o.jpg

    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 a quarter inch showing the terms and one inch showing the 'charge', placed high on a wall or pole and buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when on a 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 with perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass to be able to read the terms. To read the terms and conditions at all one would need to be at most 10 feet from the sign, but a driver driving past any signs in this car park would be more than 20 feet away.

    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.

    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 any entrance signs and how they would 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.



    We found this and copied it from another persons thread on this forum.

    Edit: - Sorry, to add hypothetically say a person went to the car park and did not buy a ticket because he/she was waiting for a person to come off the ferry and did not realise that a camera was recording entry and exit......what further information would he/she add to the POPLA letter? - surely it would be a cut and dry case? - I wouldn't expect POPLA to reverse the decision would you ?

    thanks
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 15-03-2017 at 5:55 PM. Reason: add a bit more
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 9:05 AM
    • 12,697 Posts
    • 19,535 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Some basics.

    You have inserted lots of links - don't expect the Assessor to be going back and to from your appeal to Internet links, make it as easy as possible for them, you want him/her on your side. So do this by inserting images immediately after the appeal point you are making which helps break up a mass of text that Assessors are ploughing through hour after hour, day after day - help break the tedium for them.

    Don't attempt to copy and paste into the POPLA word-restricted appeal portal dialogue box, rather convert to a .pdf file and attach under 'Other'. In the dialogue box put words to the effect 'Please see file attached for POPLA reference - 10-digit code -'.

    The appeal you copied and pasted - was this a winning appeal? If so, make reference to the decision in your appeal to encourage the Assessor not to go 'off piste'. If there's no decision known on that one, there will be others for Town Quay - so dig them out and get their references listed in your appeal. Start looking at the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky going back over the past 4-5 months. Have a look too on PePiPoo.

    Not sure when your POPLA deadline is, but if there's time, wait for other comments on your draft before firing it off.
    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.
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 15th Mar 17, 9:15 AM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Some basics.

    You have inserted lots of links - don't expect the Assessor to be going back and to from your appeal to Internet links, make it as easy as possible for them, you want him/her on your side. So do this by inserting images immediately after the appeal point you are making which helps break up a mass of text that Assessors are ploughing through hour after hour, day after day - help break the tedium for them.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thanks for the reply, when you say insert images what do you mean? - Do you mean copy and paste the actual information? - For example, the link with the chart, do I copy and paste that chart?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 9:19 AM
    • 12,697 Posts
    • 19,535 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thanks for the reply, when you say insert images what do you mean? - Do you mean copy and paste the actual information? - For example, the link with the chart, do I copy and paste that chart?
    Originally posted by Jason.rangou
    Any photos of signage, charts, maps etc that you are relying on to support your appeal. Insert it as an 'Image' in Word which should then show under the appropriate appeal paragraph.

    If you're referencing a large block of text (say a court decision), then leave that as a basic internet link.

    HTH
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 3:58 PM
    • 45,879 Posts
    • 58,876 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    There'as a Mayflower Terminal ParkingEye POPLA appeal I think from last week, which you may wish to check in case it has any more you can plagiarise! Search this parking board (only) for Mayflower.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>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

119Posts Today

1,112Users online

Martin's Twitter