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
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 16th Jul 17, 1:34 PM
    • 34Posts
    • 3Thanks
    dmo84
    UKPC -Driver Parked in a retail carpark space which thought was a space
    • #1
    • 16th Jul 17, 1:34 PM
    UKPC -Driver Parked in a retail carpark space which thought was a space 16th Jul 17 at 1:34 PM
    Hi all,

    Wondering if you could help, I know someone that had a ticket from UKPC

    the driver recently parked for a few minutes at a retail park, in a space which I believed was a parking space,
    there is defined colored brickwork around the bay which defines a zone, perfect size for a car. and on the opposite side too as another car had clearly done the same thing, the driver didnt realize it was not.

    It was an honest did not see this as when parking the driver was parking guess as they were drawn to the outline, not noticing the other bays.

    they was in the shop for around a minute or two before they could see the parking attendant at
    the car so they rushed out and apologized and explained It was an honest mistake incorrectly identifying it as a parking space because of the surroundings and markings, it looked like somewhere they could park, if they had known it was a non-parking space they would have not parked there.

    He said the ticket had already been issues so there is nothing he could do. this was all in the space of a few minutes of arriving and going in to the shop for 1 min.

    they have already sent an appeal with a picture but it states we will get back to you within 35 days

    they dont want to be paying this as they feel its unfair that there was a zone defined which legitimatly looked like a space.
    Last edited by dmo84; 17-07-2017 at 8:47 AM.
Page 3
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 11th Aug 17, 9:52 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    This is the thing, they are going to need to remove this from the template as they are persuing the driver, as the driver has already named themselves.


    So essentially they would have to remove section 1 or 2 (or both?) from above?
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 13th Aug 17, 4:26 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    stripped out some sections, and photos from the space itself with no visibility of signs will be included, aswel as the marked bay in question.


    Is section 3 any good?


    POPLA Appeal Letter

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC on the following points:


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


    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    3. Parking in a marked bay - The sign in this car park stipulates that cars should be parked in a marked bay. The car itself was infact parked in a marked bay surrounded by defined brickwork.




    4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself



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

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

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

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

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

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

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.



    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 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


    3. Parking in a marked bay


    There was clear visibility of a marked out brickwork bay around the vehical, to which it is clearly deceiving to be a space for a vehicle to park, so much so that a vehicle had been drawn to the space in front of me in the same manner. There is nothing stipulating that you should no park there, no crossed lines, no warnings, it is very deceiving. Signs which are not easily visible do not specify that vehicles must be parked in a white marked bays, They simply say parked in a marked bay. It should be the responsibility of the landowner or carpark owners to clearly identify this as a non-parking space. I would suggest painting warnings, or the removal of the brickwork which defines markings around a car in this particular case.



    4. 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:


    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.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:



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



    ''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 judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:



    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.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Aug 17, 5:37 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    You are still mentioning the keeper and no keeper liability.

    Are they pursuing the keeper despite knowing who was driving?
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 14th Aug 17, 10:35 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    OK I have removed that section also, just the 3 sections now, is this any better?







    POPLA Appeal Letter

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC on the following points:



    1. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    2. Parking in a marked bay - The sign in this car park stipulates that cars should be parked in a marked bay. The car itself was infact parked in a marked bay surrounded by defined brickwork.




    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself





    1. 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


    2. Parking in a marked bay


    There was cleared visibility of a marked out brickwork bay around my car, to which it is clearly deceiving to be a space for a vehicle, so much so that a vehicle had been drawn to the space in front of me in the same manner. There is nothing stipulating that you should no park there, no crossed lines, no warnings, it is very deceiving. Signs which are not easily visible do not specify that vehicles must be parked in a white marked bay. They simply say parked in a white bay. It should be the responsibility of the landowner or carpark owners to clearly identify that this is not somewhere to park. I would suggest painting warnings, or the removal of the brickwork which defines markings around a car.
    3. 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:


    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.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:



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



    ''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 judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:



    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 17, 1:27 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would remove this sentence, as it helps UKPC's case, not yours:
    They simply say parked in a white bay.
    And in the final point about unclear signs, with UKPC I always go to their website and screenshot their own worst picture(s) of a blurred, unreadable sign, and embed that in at the end to show how illegible the nitty gritty of the 'bay' terms actually are.
    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.

    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 14th Aug 17, 1:35 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    Thanks, Amended section 2



    How would the image of a blurred sign be help ? I can include this but its taken from the internet, I would think that taking a picture of where I was parked showing no close up signs would help. I can include both if need be.

    Does it have to be exactly the same stock image as whats in the carpark? as some differ


    How far off am I from submitting this back do you think if I can finish off the rest? shall I leave it for a period of time before I do?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 17, 4:29 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    How would the image of a blurred sign be help ? I can include this but its taken from the internet, I would think that taking a picture of where I was parked showing no close up signs would help. I can include both if need be.
    Both, and what I mean is not a 'stock sign' from the internet. You want to log in to UKPC's own website within your VRN and look at ''photos'' and grab their own blurry picture from that day - UKPC are very good at showing a sign where the terms can't be read - take a look for yourself!

    You are nearly there, but I do like embedding UKPC's own pics to damn 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.

    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 15th Aug 17, 1:07 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    They will have taken a picture ? I didnt know that, I will login and have a look, once i copy that in, and also take another picture for myself, am I good to go with submission?

    Shall I include a picture of the sign close up?
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 18th Aug 17, 8:32 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    Hi all,

    about to submit my POPLA 2nd stage appeal, although I just noticed this in the UKPC 1st stage appeal, is this true? if I submit second stage appeal I lose the right to £60 discounted rate if I lose?


    "2. Make an appeal to POPLA – Submit an appeal online at www.popla.co.uk within 28 days of the date of this letter using the verification code above. “Alternatively if you do not have internet access, you can send a letter to POPLA, PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL within 28 days of the date of this letter using the verification code above.” Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £60, and should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. "
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Aug 17, 8:44 AM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Standard throughout the skimdustry to dissuade you from making the appeal to POPLA where a win for you will mean the PPC being told they have no case to pursue you any further. Kills them off dead, whereas, if they can't get you to pay straight up with the 'discounted' rate, the last thing they want is to have all their chances of getting your money blocked by a POPLA defeat.

    If you don't appeal to POPLA, it leaves the door open to the PPC to pursue you (via powerless debt collectors, or an occasional foray at the small claims court) for up to 6 years.

    Even if you lose at POPLA, there is no obligation on you to pay the charge; their decision is not binding on you.

    Can't you see the psychology behind the 'discount'? Don't fall for it.
    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.
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 18th Aug 17, 9:01 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    OK, so go for the POPLA second stage appeal without worry about the scare tactic of "if you go for a POPLA appeal you will lose access to the £60 rate"

    I will get it submitted today. If for what ever reason it doesnt come in favour, what next?

    How long does the decision usually come back from them ?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 18th Aug 17, 9:07 AM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    The whole process is fully explained in the newbies FAQ thread.

    If popla fails you are in the next phase of debt collectors letters. But read the newbies FAQ thread!
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 8th Sep 17, 6:47 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    Looks like my POPLA appeal didn't go in my favor, received an email, am I going to have to pay the £100 charge? they are asking me to provide comments within 7 days of the evidence.

    Your parking charge appeal against UK Parking Control Ltd.

    UK Parking Control Ltd has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here

    You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by UK Parking Control Ltd.


    Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

    Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment.

    If you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by UK Parking Control Ltd such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

    Yours Sincerely,

    POPLA Team

    ET6104/003










    When I login there is some attachments, then a long 33 page PDF including images, they said they had sent a letter but I had not received any?











    On 15th July 2017, our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration XXXXXX at XXXXXXX. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.
    The Parking Charge amount was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received within 14 days.
    An appeal was received from the self-nominated driver XXXXXXXX on 15th July 2017, to which the appeals department investigated. The basis of this appeal was XXXXXX believed this was a marked bay where his vehicle was parked. Our signage clearly shows that a bay is marked with two white lines on either side of the vehicle and
    XXXXXXXX will have been aware of this as he is parked next to vehicles which are parked correctly within marked bays. Therefore UKPC rejects XXXXXXXX claim that he was unaware that his vehicle was not parked in a clearly marked bay.
    XXXXXXXX has stated he was not parked out a marked bay for more than 2 minutes. There is no requirement in law for private parking operators to offer a grace period before issuing parking charges. Being a member of the BPA, however, UKPC must adhere to the BPA Code of Practice’s condition that drivers should be allowed ‘a reasonable grace period’ before issuance (Section 13.2) (prior to Amendments in Oct 2015.) Reasonableness, of course, differs according to contravention type and circumstance and does not detail how long a reasonable grace period is. UKPC does offer such a reasonable grace period with all of its parking charges. It should be noted that issuing a charge itself takes some time, which may be considered as a reasonable grace period in certain circumstances.
    In his POPLA case,
    XXXXXXXX has stated he is appealing this case as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However as XXXXXXXX has nominated himself as the driver in his initial appeal to UKPC, this statement is irrelevant due to XXXXXXXX status as the driver of the vehicle during the contravention.
    XXXXXXXX has questioned UKPC's authority to manage parking in this site and has wished to see a redacted copy of our contract with the landowner of the site.The contract that UKPC has with the owner or occupier of the land (which authorises UKPC to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of Parking Charges in respect of parking of the vehicle on the land) contains a confidentiality clause and as such we are not in a position to provide the contract to Mr xxxxxx As a member of the Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC are audited by the British Parking Association to ensure that we have all relevant contracts in place. UKPC will provide the court with a copy of this in full if they require it, or can provide a written statement to this effect from those party to the contract. We are also more than happy to provide confirmation to the independent assessors that we are authorised to manage parking at this site. We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd. However, in accordance with the BPA code of practice section 22.16b, please find attached a compliant witness statement signed by the property management company of this site stating they have transferred the authority for managing the parking in this site to UKPC. Therefore, we believe this is sufficient evidence that UKPC has the authority to manage the parking in this site and issue parking charges to vehicles that contravene the terms and conditions for parking in this site, such as
    XXXXXXXX claims there is no signage or markings informing him that the area where his vehicle is parked is contravening the terms and conditions of the site. . I would, advice as the appellant has parked on private land and not council land, road markings are not a requirement. Furthermore, there is sufficient entrance signage and signage informing XXXXXXXX that there are terms and conditions for parking in this site and it is the driver responsibility to read these terms and conditions for parking and adhere to them. All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.
    In designing our signs we have considered the findings of the Beavis vs Parking Eye case which stated that the amount of the parking charge should be adequately brought to the attention of the motorist as well as the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. We have achieved this by outlining the key Terms & Conditions that a motorist should be aware of before remaining at the location at the top of the signage, then giving some more specific detail about the location Terms before having a separate section detailing the implications of a breach of the Terms & Conditions, including the amount of any PCN charge. We contend that this is a logical progression through the sign that any visitor to the location would be able to follow, and as a consequence we contend that the amount of the parking charge has been more than adequately brought to the attention of the motorist.
    XXXXXXXX has claimed there is no contract that can be made between the driver and the parking management company due to the inadequate signage in this site. The Parking Charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited (“UKPC”) are levied on the basis of a contract with the driver, as detailed on the signage displayed in the car parks. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of parking under which a driver is authorised to park, be that by pre-payment of a parking tariff, or by parking only for a maximum period of time, or by adhering to other terms and conditions (such as being parked within a marked bay), and that a Parking Charge will be payable if the conditions of parking are not met by the driver. We ensure that signage containing the terms and conditions of parking is ample, clear, visible and in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice to ensure the driver is bound by them when they enter and remain on site, so that all users of the car park are obliged to follow these terms and conditions of parking. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking in the car park.
    Furthermore, as we have stated before all of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.
    As we have answered each point of
    XXXXXXXX POPLA case, we reject the notions that he was unaware of the terms and conditions for parking in this site and contravened these terms and conditions for parking.
    There are sufficient signs warning drivers that parking outside of a marked bay may lead to a Parking Charge being issued.
    XXXXXXXX vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay and consequently the Parking Charge was correctly issued.
    A letter was sent to
    XXXXXXXX informing them of our decision on 10th August 2017.






    there is more to the PDF.


    However I have recieved no letter for this!
    Last edited by dmo84; 08-09-2017 at 6:48 PM. Reason: edit
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 8th Sep 17, 8:07 PM
    • 3,489 Posts
    • 3,550 Thanks
    DoaM
    Oh for goodness sake! This is ALL TO BE EXPECTED ... what you do now is read through their evidence and rebut each point they make.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 17, 1:30 AM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks like my POPLA appeal didn't go in my favor,
    What on earth makes you think that, just because UKPC sent some drivel evidence? That's not the decision from POPLA, it's the other side's effort at evidence, for you to comment on.

    Everyone gets that, a fully expected part of the process, now you comment on what you spot.
    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.

    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 9th Sep 17, 10:06 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    This is all I have for the response so far :/ i am not sure what else to put in it




    POPLA Appeal Response Comments


    Date : XXXXX
    Reference No : XXXX
    Registration Number : XXXXX
    POPLA Reference No : XXXXX


    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    In Response to UKPC on this matter.

    “On 15th July 2017, our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration XXXXXX at XXXXXX Retail Park. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.”


    I disagree with this statement, the car was parked within a marked bay, I have clearly shown this in pictures, the car was parked within a defined brickwork colored bay, deceiving to the eye as being a parking space. – I have looked over several car parks since, and if there is a zone which looks like a parking bay, they have clearly defined it as a non-parking space, either by wording, or lines showing that you are no allowed to park there. It is up to the responsibility of the car park operators to ensure that you are not intending for cars to park there, and given that it looks like a zoned parking space, you have not correctly taken the actions to clearly show this.

    “An appeal was received from the self-nominated driver Mr XXXXXX on 15th July 2017, to which the appeals department investigated. The basis of this appeal was Mr XXXXXX believed this was a marked bay where his vehicle was parked. Our signage clearly shows that a bay is marked with two white lines on either side of the vehicle and Mr XXXXXX will have been aware of this as he is parked next to vehicles which are parked correctly within marked bays. Therefore UKPC rejects XXXXXX claim that he was unaware that his vehicle was not parked in a clearly marked bay.”


    Again I disagree on this, the wording on the signage, is not within clear readable distance, and there is not enough signs to cover most of the area of the car park, the wording is small and unclear, also, the style and wording of the whole sign is white, your wording should include “marked in the white lines” to make things clearer. Your wording simply says “parked in a marked bay” to which the vehicle was. As mentioned previously I suggest that these bays that are marked, should be lined out or wording specifying that it is not a valid space.



    “Mr XXXXXX claims there is no signage or markings informing him that the area where his vehicle is parked is contravening the terms and conditions of the site. . I would, advice as the appellant has parked on private land and not council land, road markings are not a requirement. Furthermore, there is sufficient entrance signage and signage informing Mr XXXXXX that there are terms and conditions for parking in this site and it is the driver responsibility to read these terms and conditions for parking and adhere to them. All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.”

    This statement I disagree with this, there are not enough signs within the entrances and within distance of the spaces, also not worded correctly, again the car was parked within a marked bay, not marked out as a non parking space.

    “There are sufficient signs warning drivers that parking outside of a marked bay may lead to a Parking Charge being issued. Mr XXXXXX vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay and consequently the Parking Charge was correctly issued.”


    The car itself was parked within a marked bay.



    “A letter was sent to Mr XXXXXX informing them of our decision on 10th August 2017 “


    Where was this letter sent? As I have received no letter.
    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 9th Sep 17, 12:16 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    I have been to a different carpark this morning where they have used Yellow lines criss cross in bays which may look like spaces but have defined them as a place that you are not supposed to park (this is in disabled area)

    There is bays for normal parking, again spaces which are deceiving to be spaces are marked out by white criss cross lines


    Is there any law I can chuck at them to say that they should be using markings ?
    Last edited by dmo84; 09-09-2017 at 12:31 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 17, 12:41 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The comments should be very short bullet points; anything longer will not be read.

    Is there any law I can chuck at them to say that they should be using markings ?
    No, there is no law on private land markings. And you can't throw in anyhing not in your POPLA appeal.
    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.

    • dmo84
    • By dmo84 13th Sep 17, 4:09 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    dmo84
    Submitted my comments, its been unsuccessful, I guess I will have to pay then, I am not in a position to pay until 12 days time if I cant go any further with this.- It will be £100 then






    Decision
    Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    **********

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver remained on the site, not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space.


    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the signage at the site is insufficient and doubts the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue charges. They state they were parked in a marked bay.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site. The operator has provided photographic evidence of signage, together with a site map. The signage states: “PARKING CONDITIONS APPLY … Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge … All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays” The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice provides guidance on signage. From Section 18.1: “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice: “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.” After reviewing the signage, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the driver had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions. I note one of the signs is clearly facing the appellant’s vehicle at the time of the parking event. The states they were parked in a marked bay, and had mentioned the surface brickwork. I do not accept this. The photographic evidence shows the bay markings do not extend to the area where the appellant parked. The appellant doubts the landowner’s authority to issue parking charges on the site. The operator has provided a witness statement signed by an associate director for and on behalf of the landowner. Section 22.16b of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Witness Statements were introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within a POPLA Evidence Pack and as such these Statements should be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent.” This means POPLA can accept a witness statement as an alternative to a contract as evidence of landowner authority. Section 7 of the Code sets out the requirements of the operator to provide evidence that it has authority to issue charges for parking events on the land. Section 7.1 states: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” Further, Section 7.3: “The written authorisation must also set out: The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintain signs The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.” Therefore, I consider the operator’s evidence satisfies the requirements of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By entering the car park, the driver agreed to the site’s terms and conditions. By remaining on the site without being parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space, the driver parked in breach of the terms and conditions. Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Sep 17, 4:15 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Or you coudl see if they actually try court

    Thats a shocking decision, again.

    Can you put paragraphs in it?
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

186Posts Today

1,287Users online

Martin's Twitter