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
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 6th Jul 17, 6:19 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Mistysocks
    Parkingeye and Britannia parking
    • #1
    • 6th Jul 17, 6:19 PM
    Parkingeye and Britannia parking 6th Jul 17 at 6:19 PM
    Hi. Firstly sorry I have read and re read the newbies post and other sites on charges over a few weeks and I just can't get to grips with all the legal stuff and what to write. I need someone to tell me what to do and write as I just can't get my head around it, so sorry in advance.... I am rather stressed....
    There are two parking charge notices...... fab ��
    First is Britannia. The driver parked and paid for 4hrs however, the machine was so confusing and not very clear on how to use it (input reg plate) and another lady was having a meltdown as she couldn't work it out. The driver put their credit card in to pay, pin no entered, payment with. They hit the button under receipt as They had soooo much hassle, over 5mins, they'd get it as proof. The keeper then received a notice a few days after the event saying they hadn't paid and showing my car going in and out. They had the receipt so appealed with them, they rejected saying the proof of payment is actually a void card receipt! Which on looking it does say that but They pressed the receipt button, there wasn't one for void transaction. How do I appeal this? The driver thought they had paid and was back within the 4hours paid for. The receipt shows the amount and reg plate and time.
    Second one is parking Eye,
    They sent me a parking charge notice for 10 mins showing my car go in and out . They state it is permit/authorised only. They do not have a picture of the car parked and the keeper appealed this asking for further pictures which they have not supplied. I didn't state who the driver was.
    I know with this one I can appeal to popla as they have sent me a parking charge where there is in fact no parking and they have no proof the car was parked. I need a template of what to write to popla, the jargon part I don't get.
    The Britannia one I don't even know where to start to appeal. I have photos of the machine and notices, the thing is the driver thought They had paid, and prepared to pay the £4.10 but not £100!
    Please help and please word it in a "child friendly" way. I'm not stupid but feel very stupid not understanding what to do/write with regards to these charges.
    Thank you in advance.
    Last edited by Mistysocks; 06-07-2017 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Changing I to They
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Jul 17, 9:18 PM
    • 15,516 Posts
    • 19,601 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 6th Jul 17, 9:18 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Jul 17, 9:18 PM
    ok , simple terms , from start to finish

    job 1) , check the BPA WEBSITE http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators AOS members and see if either or both are BPA AOS members

    yes they both are

    job 2) now go to the NEWBIES sticky thread , read post #1

    job 3) see the blue text template ? , appeal each one using it "as is" , no changes , as keeper (not as driver)

    nb:- both companies are using ANPR cameras at the entrance/exit , so parking is not monitored at all, just TIME ON SITE

    assume they reject the appeals (most of the time initial appeals are rejected - no matter what , even if you were run over and taken to hospital and was on life support , they wont cancel as there is no profit in it, which is why we dont care about what happened on the day , personally I have no interest in "your story" , it doesnt really matter what that "story is" , not to me , definitely not to the parking company , and definitely not to popla either)

    job 4) , go back to the NEWBIES sticky thread , post #3 and check other appeals made by other members (no templates at all here, but various examples of what others have used before you came along)

    job 5) open a word doc, find a recent popla appeal and copy and paste it to word , now adapt it and adjust it to suit

    bear in mind you are not "telling a story" , few if any care about "what happened" , the only thing that matters is putting up a legal defence to counter their legal arguments that a contract exists and a debt is owed

    so basically you are not saying "sorry, I didnt mean to do it but........."

    you are actually saying (this is where you puff your chest out and take umbrage)

    HOW DARE YOU SEND ME THIS INVOICE AND IN MY APPEAL/DEFENCE I STATE THE FOLLOWING

    YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE

    1) NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
    2) POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
    3) YOU FAILED TO FOLLOW THE BPA CoP clause blah blah and clause blah blah and no valid contract and poor signage and no grace periods etc
    4) this event is not like BEAVIS because.................

    5) blah
    6) blah blah

    I PUT YOU TO STRICT PROOF OF WHAT YOU ALLEGE AND ASK POPLA/THE COURT TO STRIKE OUT THIS SPURIOUS UNWARRANTED CHARGE

    but you need to do the work because nobody here will do it for you

    but if you post you draft appeal/defence on here (minus any personal details/references etc , someone should check it over for you and point out anything that needs omitting/editing/adding

    hope that helps ?

    now edit your last post because due to parking companies reading this forum , the following words are banned

    "ME , MYSELF , I"

    the correct terms are THE KEEPER and THE DRIVER , nothing else

    ps:- this person was making all the same rookie mistakes as you are (and as I was many years ago before coming here)

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5636428
    Last edited by Redx; 06-07-2017 at 9:28 PM.
    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
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Jul 17, 9:22 PM
    • 32,808 Posts
    • 16,839 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #3
    • 6th Jul 17, 9:22 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Jul 17, 9:22 PM
    If you've done all the reading you say you have you should know this:


    Throughout you are advised to never reveal who the driver was.


    You need to edit your post to remove the details of who was driving


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts here against you
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 6th Jul 17, 11:01 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    • #4
    • 6th Jul 17, 11:01 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Jul 17, 11:01 PM
    Thank you so much. The appeals have already been rejected by both companies so I will try to locate situations close to my own to appeal to popla.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Jul 17, 11:25 PM
    • 15,516 Posts
    • 19,601 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 6th Jul 17, 11:25 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Jul 17, 11:25 PM
    ok , please do so, find similar threads from this year (2017) so that their popla appeals can be adapted

    but do not get "hung up" or "sidetracked" on what happened on the days the charges were brought about , any info about that day may not be relevant , or not worth considering , or not worth bringing up

    this is what the POPLA website says about appeals

    Collect your evidence

    Prepare any evidence which may support your case
    You should be prepared to attach any evidence that you believe supports your case. This might include a crime reference number (if the vehicle was stolen), photographs (if you think the signage was inadequate), your pay and display voucher (if you say it was displayed and had not expired) or any witness statements if applicable. It will be useful to have electronic copies of these to hand so that you can upload these during the online process.
    notice in previous POPLA appeals, plus in todays post by umkomaas in the thread I linked , that the liast of appeal points may have nothing at all to do with your "story" or "who did what"


    popla appeals are "put up or shut up" defences, where you try to get them to fail on a single point , of many points


    win on one point alone , and you win outright , REGARDLESS of what happened on the day


    or the PPC may "fold" when seeing a well constructed popla appeal that they will struggle to beat on each and every count


    good luck


    and post the draft on here for critique when finalised , minus reference , no pcn numbers , no VRM numbers , no names or addresses or emails etc


    ad them just before you convert the final appeal to a pdf from a word doc


    then UPLOAD the appeal to POPLA, after choosing "OTHER" in their tick boxes (ignore all the other loaded questions)


    in their comments box , put "SEE ATTACHED APPEAL" , then submit it


    so no , do not copy and paste your appeal into their comments box , it may not fit anyway , so dont try it , ie:- UPLOAD IT AS A PDF
    Last edited by Redx; 07-07-2017 at 12:50 AM.
    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
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 6th Jul 17, 11:38 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    • #6
    • 6th Jul 17, 11:38 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Jul 17, 11:38 PM
    Thank you so much. Your help is really appreciated.
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 7th Jul 17, 1:12 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    • #7
    • 7th Jul 17, 1:12 AM
    Parkingeye to popla draft
    • #7
    • 7th Jul 17, 1:12 AM
    Please can you take a look at this draft.

    Ref no xxxxxxxxxxxx
    POPLA reference Code: XXXXXX
    Dear POPLA,

    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX. I wish to appeal the £100 issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by Parking Eye car park management for ‘Parking In No Parking Area' at xxxxxxxxxx

    I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge and would be grateful if you would respectfully consider my appeal:-

    1. ANPR Evidence.
    2. Parking Eye car park management has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    3. No contract was entered into between Parking Eye car park management and the Driver or Registered Keeper
    4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage.


    1. I would question the authenticity of the ANPR photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. On close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    I would challenge Parking Eye to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge Parking Eye that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of photographs, as the date stamps have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

    As there is no marking on the photographs to indicate which specific camera took the photograph, and no other distinguishing features in the feature other than XXXXXXXX, the distinct possibility that the photographs were taken of the vehicle when it was elsewhere and used in this instance cannot be dismissed. I again would challenge Parking Eye car park management to prove the photographs which have been provided to me are indeed genuine.


    2. Parking Eye car park management has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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, not by POPLA, nor the operator, not even in court. 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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA 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 cannot show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. Parking Eye car park management has failed to do this.

    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 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.''

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
    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.''

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver. Whilst I am the registered keeper of the car, the driver has never been identified or proven and there is no evidence as to the identity of that individual.


    3. As Parking Eye car park management does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require them to produce an un redacted 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 Parking Eye car park management 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 erect some signs 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 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).

    Parking Eye car park management has failed to produce evidence that it has the authority to form contracts with drivers on this land or to pursue charges. The signs at the car service area in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Parking Eye car park management clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract.

    I contend that Parking Eye car park management merely holds a basic commercial licence to supply and maintain confusing signage and to issue parking charge notices as a deterrent.

    In my email appeal to Parking Eye car park management on 2nd July 2017 I asked them to provide me with copies of all photos relating to my car as the registered keeper, of which they did not supply any on replying. So the only photos they have are very dubious ones showing the front of a car and the rear which could have been taken anywhere as there are no clear entry or exit barriers near a bollard with dubious dates as times on it.
    None of the requested information was supplied as part of the appeal response, and the appeal response itself appears to be a pro-forma refusal. Were the Parking Eye car park management appeal process anything other than a process by which to appear compliant with BPA guidelines then that information would have been provided in good faith as a matter of course. The fact that it has not been provided indicates that the Parking Eye car park management appeal process is perfunctory and essentially useless.


    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

    Furthermore, 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 a witness statement would not comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the exact services provided by Parking Eye car park management would not be fully stated.

    4. I stated in my appeal email that signage is not clearly displayed, nor can you read the terms and conditions as the writing is so small and the signs are roughly 8-9 foot high on a wall. I walked to the service area after I received the notice to take photos. I could not read it standing on the ground so I have no doubt that a person driving entering the area would not see it.

    It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs with such poorly displayed terms, putting the onus clearly on drivers to search carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of Parking Eye car park management to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Parking Eye car park management to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park

    I request that Parking Eye car park management provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific detail including an agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

    This lack of signage runs counter to section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice which states:

    18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

    As Registered Keeper of the vehicle, I contend that:

    The signage states in very small black lettering against a white background (see photo A) I respectfully suggest the POPLA adjudicator will agree that the words are exceptionally difficult to read and understand, on the photograph I have provided and therefore breach Section 18.3 of the BPA CoP as listed previously.


    The signage information provided by Parking Eye car park management fails the test of being “plain and intelligible.” The question one should be asking is, why warn motorists using tiny black writing against a white background? Parking Eye also state in their notice charge that the signage states that this is private land, as you can see in photo A, it does not state this at all. The notice also states "The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound" However, parkingeye have fail to supply photographic proof that this vehicle was parked and therefore the terms and conditions, if they could even be read by a driver in a car, is invalid as the car is not parked.


    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in adjudication:

    ‘Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.’ Parking Eye car park management have failed to do this.

    The signs are positioned high up in the service area (as shown in photo B) and the small lettering was not visible (readable) to be seen by any driver entering the service area at that any time of the day in a normal sized car. This is not mitigating circumstances but failure by Parking Eye car park management to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met. I ask this operator to show how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when entering the site. 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 demand strict proof that those signs are visible at that exact time on that day.

    The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

    Signs should be readable and understandable at all times.

    Furthermore, the landmark case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Parking Eye car park management has not provided evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.

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

    Yours Sincerely,

    XXXXXX XXXX.
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 9th Jul 17, 4:33 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    • #8
    • 9th Jul 17, 4:33 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Jul 17, 4:33 PM
    Hi, can anyone confirm that this is ok to send please? Many thanks in advance
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jul 17, 5:39 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,483 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 9th Jul 17, 5:39 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Jul 17, 5:39 PM
    I would not have this, as it never works at POPLA to cast aspersions on ANPR systems:
    1. ANPR Evidence.
    ...and if it really was only ten minutes I would replace it with a decent argument quoting the BPA Code of Practice on 'grace periods'. Search this board for:

    'POPLA grace period Kelvin eleven minutes'
    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.

    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 10th Jul 17, 5:52 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    Hi, thank you. Yep on the notice it says 10 mins, so I'll have a look at the grace period.
    ����
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Jul 17, 7:24 PM
    • 15,516 Posts
    • 19,601 Thanks
    Redx
    yep , check clause #13 of the BPA CoP and also check recent popla appeals that were made using GRACE PERIODS and clause #13 as a separate defence point , then use and adapt one of their already written paragraphs
    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
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 11th Jul 17, 12:30 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    Hi, I have sent the popla appeal off for parking eye, as that was the easier to do via the templates and threads.
    The Britannia one is harder as I can't find anything in the templates and threads for putting.in car reg plate & paying by c.card getting it authorised then asking for a receipt but the machine voiding it without my noticing. The machine was so hard to work out, and I have since taken pictures of the Signage to find the college have put up their own signs on how to use the machine in laymans terms. I have the receipt, which shows times amount "paid" & reg plate. Now in my appeal I said I parked the car (not driving just parking) does this go against me in appealing to popla? I am just tempted to send a chq for the 4 hrs parked as I'm not sure I could win this. I have spent hours trawling thru info on here but can't find a case like mine......
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 12:40 AM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,483 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am just tempted to send a chq for the 4 hrs parked as I'm not sure I could win this.
    That does not make it go away. And it's only Britannia, the lesser of your two evils, a weak firm. Who cares if you win or not, they are unlikely to try a claim and are not a firm to fear, or pay!

    Why not just write a first appeal point about what happened, then add the usual other templates about 'unclear signs', and 'no landowner authority', and the case can be distinguished from the Beavis case because it's about a quantifiable tariff.

    Show us the resulting POPLA appeal and we will help fine tune 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.

    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 15th Jul 17, 6:34 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    Please can someone check this appeal to popla. I am not sure this is all correct but have taken what coupon-mad has said in the post above. Thank you in advance.


    POPLA Ref:

    I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from Britannia Parking at Southend College.

    To protect the driver, they have not been named.

    My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
    1. Pay machine working instructions unclear and unable to follow.
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3. Inadequate signage


    1. The driver spent roughly 5 minutes trying to work out how to use the pay machine at the underground car park. The driver said that a lady was also trying to pay for her car park at the next pay machine along side the one they were using, and she was having a meltdown as she couldn't work out how to use the machine. Both this lady and the driver asked a man, that came into the car park, if he knew how to use the machine-and he told them that the machines were new machines and a lot of people were having problems trying to pay as the instructions are not clear. The driver eventually worked out how to input the car registration plate and proceeded to pay by credit card. The driver then obtained a receipt by pressing the button on the machine under the word "receipt" because they had so much trouble trying to pay, they got it as proof just in case there was an issue with parking. The driver then proceeded about their business and returned within the 4 hours that they had paid for. Please see photo of the receipt that was issued.

    On appealing to Britannia, the receipt was forwarded to them as proof. Britannia then said that this is not a receipt and is in fact a void receipt, rendering the payment void. However, there was no button on the machine to void the transaction, and why would the driver go to the effort of trying to work out how to use the machine, as the instructions were completely useless, input their card details, reg plate and payment for 4 hours only to void the transaction? But still return before the 4 hours were up?


    2. 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, 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


    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all areas 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.

    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.

    May I bring to your attention POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found signs 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, I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs. Please see photos of the signs, and note how small the lettering is, the bottom half of the signs is so small it is unreadable. The instructions on how to use the machines and the photo of the machine, you can clearly see how complicated the machine looks.

    My son attends that college. He took the photos of the machines and signage for me. I asked him to return to get a clearer picture as the pictures were quite dark, he said that is how the machine and signage are, in shadow. He also noted on his return that the college had added extra instructions on how to use the machines, presumable because they have had numerous complaints. Please note in this photo that it states "confirm if a receipt is required". The driver did just that, and this is what has happened because of that.


    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.

    Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully


    Registered Keeper.
    • Cygnus Alpha
    • By Cygnus Alpha 15th Jul 17, 6:50 PM
    • 187 Posts
    • 307 Thanks
    Cygnus Alpha
    Hi Misty,

    I'll let others comment on the other parts but I do have a few thoughts on the intro and para 1.

    There is absolutely no need to have the sentence

    "To protect the driver, they have not been named."

    I would remove it.

    Also, I think para 1 needs to be clearer and punchier. Was the driver's credit card debited or not? Why are you putting their side of the story as well? From the way it is written, the reader is left with the impression that the parking company are right: that the driver fluffed the transaction (by putting the wrong PIN for example) and got a void receipt and didn't read it.

    If the point that you want to make is that the machine was faulty and the instructions unfathomable, then say so more explicitly.
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 15th Jul 17, 7:08 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    the driver had to wait for their credit card statement and no the payment didn't go through. The transaction did get authorised by the card reader, but it seems that by pressing the "receipt" button the transaction was voided by the machine.
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 15th Jul 17, 7:20 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    1. The instructions on the machines in the car park are unfathomable! They are not clear at all and in fact the driver spent roughly 5 minutes trying to work out how to use the pay machine at the

    On appealing to Britannia, the receipt was forwarded to them as proof. Britannia then said that this is not a receipt and is in fact a void receipt, rendering the payment void. However, there was no button on the machine to void the transaction, and why would the driver go to the effort of trying to work out how to use the machine, as the instructions were completely useless, input their card details, reg plate and payment for 4 hours only to void the transaction? But still return before the 4 hours were up?

    The driver had to wait until the credit card statement came through to see if the payment had gone through, which was after the appeal to Britannia.
    • Cygnus Alpha
    • By Cygnus Alpha 15th Jul 17, 7:41 PM
    • 187 Posts
    • 307 Thanks
    Cygnus Alpha
    1. The instructions on the machines in the car park are unfathomable! They are not clear at all and in fact the driver spent roughly 5 minutes trying to work out how to use the pay machine at the

    On appealing to Britannia, the receipt was forwarded to them as proof. Britannia then said that this is not a receipt and is in fact a void receipt, rendering the payment void. However, there was no button on the machine to void the transaction, and why would the driver go to the effort of trying to work out how to use the machine, as the instructions were completely useless, input their card details, reg plate and payment for 4 hours only to void the transaction? But still return before the 4 hours were up?

    The driver had to wait until the credit card statement came through to see if the payment had gone through, which was after the appeal to Britannia.
    Originally posted by Mistysocks
    I still think you are doing a little bit too much to put their side of the story! We're trying to say it was their fault aren't we?

    How about this:-

    "1. The instructions on the machines in the car park are unfathomable and the machine failed to collect the payment from the driver's credit card.

    The driver spent roughly 5 minutes trying to work out how to use the pay machine at the car park. Another driver trying to pay at the next pay machine alongside had the same problem.

    The driver eventually worked out how to input the car registration plate and proceeded to pay by credit card. The driver then obtained a receipt by pressing the button on the machine under the word "receipt".

    However, some weeks later, the driver found that the parking company had failed to debit the credit card."
    • Mistysocks
    • By Mistysocks 15th Jul 17, 7:48 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mistysocks
    Thank you sooooo much! That is clear and precise and correct. I am clearly not very good at this!

    Is the rest ok? I only have a few more days to send this off. I really appreciate you helping me on a Saturday night.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jul 17, 8:05 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,483 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, you would normally have an easy win here by arguing 'no keeper liability' but you can't, because you said who parked. It will do the job and it's good enough for a driver appellant; it might win and it doesn't matter if not.

    But like I said before, no-one pays Britannia, whether you lose at POPLA or not this is not a charge to PAY!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-07-2017 at 9:58 PM.
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

1,199Posts Today

6,122Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: 'Sometimes the best gift is releasing somebody else from the obligation of having to give to you' says @MartinSLewis. Do y?

  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Follow Martin