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
    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 27th Feb 17, 2:09 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Abdull
    Loading Bay - UKPC
    • #1
    • 27th Feb 17, 2:09 PM
    Loading Bay - UKPC 27th Feb 17 at 2:09 PM
    Dear MSE,
    I need a support with my POPLA reparation against UKPC.

    I have given a windscreen ticket by UKPC for parking on Loading Bay. I appeal to them and they refused and provided me with a POPLA code;

    My main appeal was that they got the street name wrong on their CPN ticket. When I appealed to them I attached a copy of my Google location which shows that I was not on the street they are talking about on that date.

    The loading bay is also meant to be free for 20 minutes, It does not say that on their signage but the security guards tell us. I lived the states where the loading bay applies for the past 4 years and I use to park there with those 20 minutes and leave whenever they try to issue a PCN, but this time I did not leave the loading bay on time and they issued the CPN.

    I have looked most of the post regarding Private parking and I submitted my original appeal using the NEWBIES Blue statement with the evidence that the street name is wrong but they refused as expected.

    I am now in process of preparing my POPLA appeal and I need advice on what to include.

    - Windscreen ticket with the wrong street name
    - Their Images of the car and the signage are not clear as it was dark at that time.

    Any details ground of appeal is appreciated. (I could not attach any file on this post as I wanted to share the images)

    Many thanks
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Feb 17, 2:24 PM
    • 15,958 Posts
    • 19,989 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 27th Feb 17, 2:24 PM
    • #2
    • 27th Feb 17, 2:24 PM
    check post #3 of the newbies sticky thread

    appeal points are

    NO CONTRACT
    NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
    POOR OR INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
    POFA 2012 failures or errors
    BPA CoP failures , breaches or errors
    incorrect location
    ANPR failures (or camera failures if no ANPR)

    images can be hosted on a hosting site (this isnt a hosting site)
    try tinypic or photobucket , same as everyone else uses
    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
    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 27th Feb 17, 3:20 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    • #3
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:20 PM
    • #3
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:20 PM
    Thanks Redx for your prompt reply and advice.

    I just managed to upload some images on Photobucket to share with you but the Forum is not allowing me to post a links.

    'Sorry as a new user you are not allowed to post with links. This is done to stop spammers clogging up the site. Please edit your message below to continue."


    Please advice me if incorrect location is relevant here and poor images.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 27th Feb 17, 3:22 PM
    • 554 Posts
    • 975 Thanks
    safarmuk
    • #4
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:22 PM
    • #4
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:22 PM
    Break the link when you post it here. E.G.
    hxxp://yyy.<rest of web address>

    Then someone will make it live for you by posting it with the correct letters (e.g. "t" instead of "x" and "w" instead of "y")
    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 27th Feb 17, 3:35 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    • #5
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:35 PM
    • #5
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:35 PM
    Thanks Safarmuk for this good idea,

    Here is the Photobucket link to share;

    hxxp://s1070.photobucket.com/user/abdull69/media/car_zpsmimjzg4x.png.html

    pleaes replace the xx to tt (e.g. "t" instead of "x" ) as the Forum not allowing me to upload links at the moment.
    Last edited by Abdull; 27-02-2017 at 3:36 PM. Reason: corrections
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Feb 17, 3:43 PM
    • 15,958 Posts
    • 19,989 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:43 PM
    • #6
    • 27th Feb 17, 3:43 PM
    live link below

    http://s1070.photobucket.com/user/abdull69/media/car_zpsmimjzg4x.png.html
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Feb 17, 7:50 PM
    • 50,584 Posts
    • 63,969 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 27th Feb 17, 7:50 PM
    • #7
    • 27th Feb 17, 7:50 PM
    So you appealed as per the NEWBIES thread at day 26 after the windscreen PCN...and the reason for doing that in the name of the keeper, at day 26, is to give you the slam dunk winning appeal point that:

    - no NTK was served. So obviously that's point #1 (if true, if no NTK arrived).

    The templates for this are in the NEWBIES thread post #3.

    And the pics show no evidence of the signage wording being readable or lit (the flash of the UKPC temporary staff member's camera had to light the sign an still you can't read it!).
    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.

    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 27th Feb 17, 10:34 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    • #8
    • 27th Feb 17, 10:34 PM
    • #8
    • 27th Feb 17, 10:34 PM
    I appealed as per the NEWBIES thread at day 25 / 26 after windscreen PCN. I have done so using the name of the keeper.

    I received the NTK day after I sent the appeal and they replied my appeal within days to refuse.

    As you can see the images they took, the area was dark and you are right they used their camera flash and still not readable.

    I will go back to the NEWBIE thread post #3 template and try to put and POPLA apeal together, for the meantime I would appreciate any grounds that I would use. Also what is the chances of using the 'Incorrect location' as they got the street name wrong?.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Feb 17, 10:43 PM
    • 15,958 Posts
    • 19,989 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 27th Feb 17, 10:43 PM
    • #9
    • 27th Feb 17, 10:43 PM
    I gave you the grounds for appeal in post #2
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 17, 12:53 AM
    • 50,584 Posts
    • 63,969 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I appealed as per the NEWBIES thread at day 25 / 26 after windscreen PCN. I have done so using the name of the keeper.

    I received the NTK day after I sent the appeal
    They can't have sent a NTK so you received it on day 27. Cannot have happened, they can't get DVLA data that early.

    You didn't post the appeal snail mail I hope?

    Please give us some dates of what actually was sent/received when. Not the date on the NTK, the date you appealed and how, the date you RECEIVED the NTK (as opposed to the date stated on it). And you aren't just talking about a rejection letter are you? An actual NTK?
    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.

    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 28th Feb 17, 9:44 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    Hi

    I have posted the appeal letter on 16/02/2018 using Royal Mail second class recorded and they received it on 17/02/2017. I could not do it on their website because you can not upload more than 1 document and also I could not fit the appeal into their appeal form.

    I have received the rejection letter on 21/02/2017. I can not remember when I have recieved the NTK But I think after the rejection letter or just before it. The NTK is dated 15/02/2017. I know I should have kept the dates on this.

    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 17, 10:09 AM
    • 50,584 Posts
    • 63,969 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The NTK is dated 15/02/2017.
    For a windscreen PCN dated?
    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.

    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 28th Feb 17, 11:50 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    The windscreen PCN is dated 16/01/2017. That is the day I was given the PCN.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 17, 1:00 PM
    • 50,584 Posts
    • 63,969 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So you appealed later than we advise and got a NTK because of that, shame, that dumps a slam dunk winning appeal point in the bin. The whole point of the 'appeal online on day 26' advice is to do just that and no NTK arrives.

    You should have appealed online around 11th Feb, not posted a late appeal which allowed them to go to the DVLA, as you were late appealing.
    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.

    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 28th Feb 17, 2:16 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    I know, I was not sure whether to appeal it or just to pay the £60, as I did not like the long process.

    What should I do now?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 17, 2:19 PM
    • 50,584 Posts
    • 63,969 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Where does any thread here tell people to pay?! Don't do that, don't fund them.
    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.

    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 28th Feb 17, 3:34 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    I agree with you Coupon-mad, we are not going to pay them a penny. And thanks for the guys here who works hard to help others with less knowledge.

    I am waiting a feedback and where to start now please
    • Redx
    • By Redx 28th Feb 17, 3:56 PM
    • 15,958 Posts
    • 19,989 Thanks
    Redx
    if you have a valid popla code , draft a popla appeal and post it for checking (with no references or personal info on here , put them in just before submission)
    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
    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 10th Mar 17, 12:29 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    Hi MSE,

    I have put a POPLA appeal together using the POPLA decisions and Posts.

    I want to emphasise that this is Loading bay with free 20minutes and no returing within 2 hours in a resident area Operates by UKPC not a Pay and display car park.

    I have not used the points made by Redx below as I am not sure.
    -POFA 2012 failures or errors
    -BPA CoP failures , breaches or errors

    Please check my POPLA appeal and let me know any changes or what to add.

    I am not use about points 5 and 6, they sound the same, ( please advice)

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

    POPLA Appeal Letter

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    POPLA Number xxxxxxxxx
    Parking Notice Number xxxxxxxxx

    I am the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC Ltd, which I believe is unreasonable and unjustifiable with the appeal points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

    1. Incorrect location.
    2. The signage was not readable in the dark, therefore no valid contract was formed
    3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    5. Poor or inadequate signageand there is insufficient notice of the allowed time for parking while loading and unloading.
    6. 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 held that the Beavis case does not apply to residential car parks.
    7. No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)

    1. Incorrect PCN location.

    The location shown on the parking charges notice left on the car’s windscreen is wrong and misleading. They show on this PCN for street name that I never been on the date of this PCN. I can proof my locations on 16/01/2017 from my Google Location history and on the day of this incident that I was not on the street mentioned on their parking charge notice (see supporting document attached).

    2. The signage was not readable in the dark therefore no valid contract was formed

    The signage available were both insufficiently lit (or not at all in some instances) and shrouded in darkness thus impossible to read around 17:30 during January when sunset was 16:22 When the alleged contravention was observed. It is the obligation of UKPC Ltd to provide signage that communicates the full contractual terms & conditions in a manner that is visible both during hours of light and darkness, particularly given that the car park operates 24 hours a day.

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states those terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead; this would include the signs being lit. For example some private parking firms place their signage on lamp posts or fit lamps above their signs, in order to provide suitable lighting that makes their terms legible.

    I would provide photo evidence below to illustrate an example of UKPC's signage, however it would be a pitch black photo.

    Instead I implore UKPC to note a source of lighting i.e. lamps in the dark on any of the signage photo evidence taken at multiple locations that makes any of the signage legible. I believe this demonstrates potentially a deliberate attempt on UKPC's behalf to not place their signage in vicinity of lighting or adequately provide lighting themselves.

    A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

    Any photos supplied by UKPC to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight (unreflective of when the alleged contravention occurred during hours of no sunlight) or with the misleading aid of flash light. As such, I require UKPC to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs in the dark without the aid of flash photography as proof for adequately clear signage.

    3. 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.''


    4. 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



    5. Poor or inadequate signageand there is insufficient notice of the allowed time for parking while loading and unloading.

    There was neither contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

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

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

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

    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.

    ''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.''

    ''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 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.


    6) 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.

    In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other 'legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question'. The true test was held to be 'whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation'.

    There can be no legitimate interest in punishing authorised loading/unloading, under the excuse of a 'parking' scheme where ostensibly - and as far as the landowner is concerned - the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the leaseholders/landholders/tenants. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and 'out of all proportion to any legitimate interest' to issue a parking penalty for permitted unloading/loading by a driver who has legitimate business and rights to do so.

    These rights supersede any signs, which are of no consequence except to deter rogue unwanted drivers from leaving their vehicles when they have no business on site. This is true of any residential or business car park where tenants/leaseholders (who may be individuals or businesses) enjoy legal 'rights of way' which extend to drivers permitted to load/unload. A third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of a tenancy agreement or a lease, nor disregard easements and rights of way that prevail in such car parks (residential or industrial).

    This question was tested recently in an Appeal case in June 2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA*). Please note this is an Appeal case, decided by a Senior Circuit Judge and as such, its findings on the definition of 'parking as opposed to loading' and the findings on leaseholder/permitted visitor/loading/delivering rights of way superseding parking signs, are persuasive on the lower courts.

    Beavis did not deal with any of these matters - nor was it relevant to a 'permit' car park - but the following case and transcript I have provided, is relevant and the Judge even states that Beavis DOES NOT APPLY to this type of car park:

    Appeal case at Oxford County Court, 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016:

    Sitting in Oxford County Court, Judge Charles Harris QC, found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats who parked in front of the communal entrance to unload furniture, rather than use her own parking space. After an initial appeal to the Independent Parking Committee was rejected, Home Guard Services sued Miss Jopson in the small claims court and won. Miss Jopson successfully appealed the case, her solicitors arguing that the charge was incompatible with the terms of the existing lease which also extended to certain rights for permitted visitors when loading/unloading. The Judge found that Laura Jopson and her fellow tenants (as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) enjoy a right of way to the block’s entrance and that Home Guard Services’ regulations disregarded these rights. Home Guard Services were required to pay £2,000 towards the defendant's costs.

    I also rely upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA**).

    District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, stating: ''I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.''


    7. No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)

    As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: '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.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'. 90 seconds, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    ------------------
    • Abdull
    • By Abdull 12th Mar 17, 9:02 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Abdull
    Hi,

    Any feedback Please
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

107Posts Today

2,330Users online

Martin's Twitter