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
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 18th Apr 17, 1:41 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Vimto101
    Advice needed on popla stage - flashpark
    • #1
    • 18th Apr 17, 1:41 PM
    Advice needed on popla stage - flashpark 18th Apr 17 at 1:41 PM
    Hi All

    First post here so please excuse all ignorance.

    It won't let me post the link to photobucket but my username is jacksterusa and you should be able to hopefully view it on there.

    Above is the letters I have received from FlashPark

    Basically the driver went to a class in the evening and parked in a car park which was Majestic wine but this space (although next to the spaces of Majestic wine) isn't part of Majectic.

    From the photo you can't see what the sign says at all and my number plate is illegible which to me shows no evidence of a contravention being made. I doubt this is enough however.

    I have copied a POPLA appeal which looks best suited to mine, would be very grateful of an advice, things to add or take away.

    This is what I have so far:

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    Ticket number: xxxxx

    Vehicle registration number: xxxxx

    POPLA appeal code XXXXXX

    I write to lodge my appeal to POPLA regarding the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Flashpark as a Notice to Keeper in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at “place” on "day" "month" 2016. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s keeper for the purposes of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

    When I initially raised my dispute with Flashpark, I took great care to explain why it had no valid claim and I was therefore very disappointed to receive from Flashpark a rejection letter that was very clearly a standard template.

    I set out below the principal reasons why I am not liable for this parking charge”.
    On the “date” I received a PCN in the post for an alleged contravention with a contravention date of “date”. The vehicle in question is described as parking in an area for permit holders only without a permit displayed.

    The date of the PCN was labelled as “date” with an outstanding amount of £85 which would be reduced to £55 if it was paid within 14 days.

    I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability

    2. Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%

    3. This is a Majestic Wine customer car park (free) not a "permit holders only car park"

    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

    5. The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver - Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £85.

    6. Case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis

    7. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability

    As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that Flashpark provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

    The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

    The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.

    2. Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%

    The original PCN cost is £85 with a reduction to £55 if paid within 14 days this should be at least 40% of the full charge under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    The charge was 'not properly given' in view of a very clear breach of basic charge amounts set out by the BPA. Compliance with this Code was considered to be 'a form of regulation' in ParkingEye v Beavis.


    3. This is a Majestic Wine customer car park (free) not a "permit holders only car park"

    This is a Majestic Wine customer car park (free) not a "permit holders only car park" I put it to Flashpark to show strict proof of an actual permit scheme being in operation. Not just signs and a PCN mentioning this imaginary contravention.

    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Flashpark must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Flashpark to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Flashpark and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Flashpark.

    5. The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver
    The only signs are up on poles and small, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. Any upright signs were not so prominent among all the other signage on site that they were ever seen by the occupants of the car. I believe that Flashpark place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a torch, to try to read them. Any photos supplied by Flashpark to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the Flashpark signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this busy customer car park. As such, I require Flashpark to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day without photoshopping or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among a myriad of other information bombarding a customer.

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. 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.

    6. Case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis

    In its parking charge notice, Flashpark has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £85 loss the landowner might have incurred for the alleged contravention.
    The contract entered into between the driver and Flashpark is a simple consumer contract.

    This makes plain that the sum of £85 being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors, and is consequently unenforceable.

    As this is a simple contract, any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.!

    Flashpark's £85 PCN is quite clearly not a genuine pre estimate of their loss and is clearly extravagant and unconscionable. If Flashpark believe their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of this. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.

    I would refer the POPLA adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye v Barry Beavis. In that situation the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking places.

    Analysis of paragraphs 43-51 from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the Court of Appeal would have considered the charge in this case as an unenforceable penalty. This case can be clearly distinguished from that of ParkingEye v Beavis the judgment in which is irrelevant in this situation.

    Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in that case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility . As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.

    7. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera

    Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require Flashpark to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    Furthermore, as described in the BPA Code of Practice under paragraph 21.1, “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

    Additionally, expanding from point 2 above, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    Considering the observations made in point 2 (Ambiguous, inadequate and non-compliant signage) above, I argue that Flashpark has failed to meet the minimum standards set out in sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. While the available sign advises that the “car park (is) monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras” for, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice nor is it therefore “easy to understand”, as required under Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours Failthfully

    xxxx

    The only bit I'm not sure about is the bit stating how high the signs are as the sign is clearly on the fence. Not sure if there is another sign on the way in to the car park but I doubt it.

    Thanks for all your help in advance!

Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Apr 17, 4:25 PM
    • 14,596 Posts
    • 22,951 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:25 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:25 PM
    Have you appealed to Flashpark yet? Have you received a POPLA code from them? Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky?

    Was the date of your parking event really in 2016?

    in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at “place” on "day" "month" 2016.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 18-04-2017 at 4:27 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 18th Apr 17, 4:36 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:36 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:36 PM
    Thanks for your response. I appealed to Flashpark as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky and received a POPLA code and an offer of a reduced rate of £25. I have uploaded all my responses on photobucket but not sure if they are viewable.

    Well spotted on the date. The event happened last month so I would change that before sending.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Apr 17, 4:45 PM
    • 14,596 Posts
    • 22,951 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:45 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:45 PM
    I have uploaded all my responses on photobucket but not sure if they are viewable.
    If you post the URL here, but change http to hxxp (makes it a dead link - newbies have restricted uploading/linking privileges until they get into double figures on their post count) then a regular will convert so we can access the images.

    However, before doing so, please ensure that any information on the images that either personally identifies you (name, address, VRM, PCN ref, specific parking times etc) is scrubbed (redacted) before you post the dead links please.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 18th Apr 17, 5:12 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:12 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:12 PM
    Ok thanks a lot. Sorry for the delay the website seems to make my computer really slow.

    hxxp://s1259.photobucket.com/user/jacksterusa/slideshow/

    Let me know if that works.

    Thanks again!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Apr 17, 5:27 PM
    • 14,596 Posts
    • 22,951 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:27 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:27 PM
    http://s1259.photobucket.com/user/jacksterusa/slideshow/

    Yep, that works, but many prefer not to have to lie on their side or twist and tilt their computer to read the third image (especially difficult if using a PC!). Any chance of rotating it back through 90°?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 18th Apr 17, 5:32 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    • #7
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:32 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:32 PM
    Haha good point.. try now!

    Thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Apr 17, 5:56 PM
    • 14,596 Posts
    • 22,951 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #8
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:56 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:56 PM
    Haha good point.. try now!

    Thanks
    Originally posted by Vimto101
    Yep, much better. it was getting a pain in the neck!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 19th Apr 17, 11:53 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    • #9
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:53 AM
    • #9
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:53 AM
    Has anyone had a chance to take a look at all?

    many thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 17, 7:27 PM
    • 50,114 Posts
    • 63,497 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Get rid of #7 completely.

    Replace #6 with the #4 I suggested here, instead (checking it all for relevance and editing if needed):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70871999#post70871999

    and replace the short 'unclear signs' point #5 with the looooong template pre-written for POPLA appeals about unclear signs, as linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.
    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.

    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 20th Apr 17, 3:29 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    Brilliant thanks Coupon Mad. Will rewrite it and post here for final approval when I get on a computer. Appreciate the time taken to look over this.
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 25th Apr 17, 5:25 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    Dear Sir or Madam,

    Ticket number: xxxxx

    Vehicle registration number: xxxxx

    POPLA appeal code XXXXXX

    I write to lodge my appeal to POPLA regarding the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Flashpark as a Notice to Keeper in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at “place” on "day" "month" 2017. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s keeper for the purposes of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

    When I initially raised my dispute with Flashpark, I took great care to explain why it had no valid claim and I was therefore very disappointed to receive from Flashpark a rejection letter that was very clearly a standard template.

    I set out below the principal reasons why I am not liable for this parking charge”.
    On the “date” I received a PCN in the post for an alleged contravention with a contravention date of “date”. The vehicle in question is described as parking in an area for permit holders only without a permit displayed.

    The date of the PCN was labelled as “date” with an outstanding amount of £85 which would be reduced to £55 if it was paid within 14 days.

    I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability

    2. Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%

    3. This is a Majestic Wine customer car park (free) not a "permit holders only car park"

    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

    5. The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver - Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £85.

    6. The operator has not allowed for the BPA's mandatory Grace Periods

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability

    As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that Flashpark provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

    The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

    The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.

    2. Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%

    The original PCN cost is £85 with a reduction to £55 if paid within 14 days this should be at least 40% of the full charge under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    The charge was 'not properly given' in view of a very clear breach of basic charge amounts set out by the BPA. Compliance with this Code was considered to be 'a form of regulation' in ParkingEye v Beavis.


    3. This is a Majestic Wine customer car park (free) not a "permit holders only car park"

    This is a Majestic Wine customer car park (free) not a "permit holders only car park" I put it to Flashpark to show strict proof of an actual permit scheme being in operation. Not just signs and a PCN mentioning this imaginary contravention.

    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Flashpark must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Flashpark to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Flashpark and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Flashpark.

    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:

    *link deleted*

    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:

    *link deleted*

    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:

    *link deleted*

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

    *link deleted*

    ''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:

    *link deleted*

    ''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:

    *link deleted*

    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. The operator has not allowed for the BPA's mandatory Grace Periods

    In the BPA Code of Practice:

    13 Grace periods
    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours Failthfully

    xxxx

    All look ok? Links removed for this post as it wouldn't let me get around posting them.

    Again, thanks for your time in advance.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Apr 17, 1:21 AM
    • 50,114 Posts
    • 63,497 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bumping for comments - forum too busy!
    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.

    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 26th Apr 17, 3:11 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    Thanks, keen to get this sent to Popla today if possible. Can understand I'm not the only one!
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 3rd May 17, 10:14 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    All sent off.. forgot to attach the bloody photos of my letters to Popla appeal but just attached the text and put see attached in all of the questions. Will let you know how I get on.
    • Vimto101
    • By Vimto101 4th May 17, 4:15 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Vimto101
    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    Vehicle Control Solutions 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

    Another successful result from the forum. Thanks all.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th May 17, 11:30 PM
    • 50,114 Posts
    • 63,497 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yay!! Sorry we got so busy we dropped the ball but you'd already fired it into the net anyway!
    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.

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

1,094Posts Today

8,494Users online

Martin's Twitter