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
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 25th Jul 17, 2:10 PM
    • 64Posts
    • 22Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Holy Trinity Church Newquay
    • #1
    • 25th Jul 17, 2:10 PM
    Holy Trinity Church Newquay 25th Jul 17 at 2:10 PM
    Afternoon,

    Okay so having already had to appeal a PCN (CP Plus) a few years ago I went about reading up on the threads and getting ready to submit for 1st/2nd stage of appeal. However I have only just realised that we only received the PCN on Saturday 22nd. The date of even is 07/07/2017 and the date issued was the 20/07/2017. Now am i right in thinking that they I need to have received the notice within 14days?

    If that is the case where do i stand/need to do for my appeal?
    Last edited by TalkGirl_uk; 25-07-2017 at 2:14 PM.
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 17, 2:31 PM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,420 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Oh, I am glad you asked, I didn't realise/completely forgot you had a golden ticket! It is very odd that you did have that style of PCN, there's no reason why they used it for your case as far as I can see.

    If so, you need to spell that out to POPLA, by saying that ParkingEye used a non-POFA PCN with nothing on the front or back, about the POFA or 'keeper liability after 29 days' that could meet the mandatory requirements of 9(2)b of Schedule 4. In your case I would embed an image of the front and AND back of the PCN, to prove it (just in case PE decide to submit evidence with the 'wrong' back page template...).

    Then you could also add in that the PCN also arrived outside of the 14 day period (but I still wouldn't say it arrived on day 15, personally, don't give that detail)

    And then I would add the usual template from the NEWBIES thread, that the appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable (driver).

    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.

    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 14th Aug 17, 4:07 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    I have now amended the appeal based on the points above. I have however left section one in for the moment but adapted it to emphasise the no mentioned of keeper liability. I have made these red for ease of reading/finding.

    Dear POPLA,

    On the XXXXX, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”!

    As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
    1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5)
    2) The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace’ Periods
    3) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
    4) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5)

    To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
    • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    • The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)


    The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Friday 7th July 2017. The relevant period is therefore the 14 day period from Saturday 8th July 2017 to!Friday 21st July 2017!inclusive. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the PCN is Thursday 20th July and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on!Monday 24th July 2017!(i.e. outside of the relevant period).

    The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:
    The notice must be given by—
    warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
    (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

    Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f). The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.

    2) Failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice ‘Grace’ Periods

    The BPA Code of Practice clearly highlights within section 13 that a company’s approach to parking management must allow a vehicle “…a reasonable period without having their vehicle issues with a parking charge notice.” Subsections 13.2 and 13.4 offer further clarification stating that
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
    of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    Upon receiving the Parking Charge, the document described the vehicle as merely entering the car park at 19:27 and merely leaving at 20:37. The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period. As Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA quoted in the news article ‘Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ period’: “…there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.” To briefly summaries his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and pay.

    The total time from arrival to exit was 1 hour and 10minutes. Sufficient parking was purchased for 1 hours worth of parking (appendix a), from 19:30 to 20.30 of the day of the alleged event. That demonstrates a three-minute period from arrival to the driver purchasing a ticket and a seven-minute period for the driver to vacate the site from point of ticket expiry. It is clear from the evidence that ParkingEye Ltd. have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park.

    3) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

    It is suggested that ParkingEye Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that ParkingEye Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

    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

    4) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

    The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:!
    18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….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.

    Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. When the driver arrived at the car park it was in the hours of dusk and therefore impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible.

    As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.!In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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 and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs 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.!In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

    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 the majority 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 operator’s 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:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and!want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.”

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':!
    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact!'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'!about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. 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.

    Based on these points, it is believed that ParkingEye Ltd. are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions and driver safety. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that ParkingEye Ltd. be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

    In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by ParkingEye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from ParkingEye Ltd.
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 14th Aug 17, 10:07 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Thank you Coupon-Mad. We have no idea either but just seems to be the case. No specific mention of 29 days anywhere only what i highlighted in the previous message.

    I have now amended the original message, which is outlined in my last post (#42). I have reworked that first point, to hopefully highlight the lack of keeper liability and the specific 14 day period you mentioned previously. Is this okay to send off or have i missed anything?
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 14th Aug 17, 10:17 PM
    • 10,196 Posts
    • 9,328 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Appeal is very long and "Flat". By that I mean no indent, italic or bold.

    For example


    It is suggested that ParkingEye Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that ParkingEye Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

    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
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 15th Aug 17, 7:20 AM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Ah okay sorry. In the originally word document it is but i didn't realise that was needed on here. Anyways i have copied it over and included all the bold/italics etc. How is it looking now?

    __________________________________________________ ______

    Dear POPLA,

    On the XXXXX, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”!

    As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
    1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5)
    2) The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace’ Periods
    3) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
    4) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5)

    To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
    • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    • The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Friday 7th July 2017. The relevant period is therefore the 14 day period from Saturday 8th July 2017 to!Friday 21st July 2017!inclusive. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the PCN is Thursday 20th July and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on!Monday 24th July 2017!(i.e. outside of the relevant period).

    The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:
    The notice must be given by—
    warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
    (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f). The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.

    2) Failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice ‘Grace’ Periods

    The BPA Code of Practice clearly highlights within section 13 that a company’s approach to parking management must allow a vehicle “…a reasonable period without having their vehicle issues with a parking charge notice.” Subsections 13.2 and 13.4 offer further clarification stating that
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
    of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
    Upon receiving the Parking Charge, the document described the vehicle as merely entering the car park at 19:27 and merely leaving at 20:37. The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period. As Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA quoted in the news article ‘Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ period’: “…there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.” To briefly summaries his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and pay.

    The total time from arrival to exit was 1 hour and 10minutes. Sufficient parking was purchased for 1 hours worth of parking (appendix a), from 19:30 to 20.30 of the day of the alleged event. That demonstrates a three-minute period from arrival to the driver purchasing a ticket and a seven-minute period for the driver to vacate the site from point of ticket expiry. It is clear from the evidence that ParkingEye Ltd. have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park.

    3) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

    It is suggested that ParkingEye Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that ParkingEye Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

    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


    4) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

    The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:!
    18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….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.
    Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. When the driver arrived at the car park it was in the hours of dusk and therefore impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible.

    As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.!In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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 and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs 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.!In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

    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 the majority 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 operator’s 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:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx
    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and!want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.
    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':!
    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact!'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'!about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. 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.

    Based on these points, it is believed that ParkingEye Ltd. are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions and driver safety. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that ParkingEye Ltd. be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

    In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by ParkingEye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from ParkingEye Ltd.
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 15th Aug 17, 10:20 AM
    • 7,521 Posts
    • 7,556 Thanks
    pogofish
    Just a thought - Has anyone tried complaining to the Diocese concerned? In this case it would be the Dioscese of Plymouth.

    Things might start getting awkward for PE if the Bishop starts taking an interest - and if that fails, I would be tempted to escalate things to the Archbishop of Westminister or even Rome - The Cleansing of the Temple surely provides enough historical precedent to make this not-on?
    Last edited by pogofish; 15-08-2017 at 10:23 AM.
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 15th Aug 17, 12:53 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Very interesting point Pogofish and one that is definitely worth some serious thought.
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 16th Aug 17, 7:04 AM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Sorry to ask guys, but i am still not sure whether this is okay to send off now in its current state. Is anyone able to give to give it a once over just to let me know?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Aug 17, 8:03 AM
    • 14,537 Posts
    • 22,879 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    A very quick skim 'on the hoof' but you seem to have nailed the main points. Given that you seem to have proved the PoFA warning wasn't given correctly (and not in time), I doubt PE will contest this.

    As I said, the fastest of skims from me, and with that caveat, it looks OK. And much better for the excellent formatting.
    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.
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 16th Aug 17, 9:02 AM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Thanks Umkomaas, I really appreciate you giving it a quick skim. The PoFA warning was the part I was most worried about, I didn't want to muck up that park of the appeal just because I had included something stupid accidentally :-)
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 16th Aug 17, 9:46 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Arrghh!! Okay the Newbies sticky was not lying that the new POPLA system is horrible! We have fallen at the first hurdle! Which option do we select:
    - Other grounds for appeal
    - I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.
    - The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct.
    - I was not improperly parked

    My gut kind of suggests other but then it gives this little caveat for Other..."Appeals based solely on the following grounds for appeal are less likely to be successful"

    So help please
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Aug 17, 9:58 PM
    • 14,537 Posts
    • 22,879 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Definitely 'Other'.

    If your appeal won't fit the portal window (character limit exceeded), just convert your Word file to .pdf format and attach it. Put something like 'Please find attached POPLA appeal for POPLA verification code xxxxxxxxxxx'. Make sure the appeal itself also includes all the identification codes (POPLA code, VRM, PPC NtK reference etc).

    We've seen absolutely no evidence that selecting 'Other' has any detrimental affect!
    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.
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 16th Aug 17, 10:00 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Thank you Umkomaas!! Will def bare your points in mind! The new system is bloody nightmare, i prefer the old one!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Aug 17, 10:03 PM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,420 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This is covered in the NEWBIES thread already...post #3 all about POPLA:
    These then get saved as PDFs and uploaded to POPLA under OTHER (ONLY) - do not think you only have 2000 characters!

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process.html
    but then it gives this little caveat for Other..."Appeals based solely on the following grounds for appeal are less likely to be successful"
    POPLA lied - we think the BPA suggested that, and the other stupid weak headings. POPLA had that there on the day they started, before ANY appeals were ever received, and it is COMPLETELY untrue.
    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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Aug 17, 10:05 PM
    • 14,537 Posts
    • 22,879 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thank you Umkomaas!! Will def bare your points in mind! The new system is bloody nightmare, i prefer the old one!
    Sounds very interesting, but 'bear' I think is the correct term!

    Let me know if you were thinking of something different.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 16-08-2017 at 10:32 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 13th Sep 17, 9:40 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Okay so we have just been sent ParkingEyes defence in which to comment on and under the case summary details they have included the following statement:

    Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    Surely if they have not adhered to POFA2012 then they are doing something very wrong, or have I misinterpreted what they are stating?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Sep 17, 9:57 PM
    • 14,537 Posts
    • 22,879 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    If the identity of the driver has not been provided, then their lack of PoFA compliance is a slam dunk for you as the keeper.

    Make sure you make this point firmly to POPLA. While you're at it, go through every other point they make and debunk anything you don't agree with, anything where you have contrary evidence for, and anything you think is plain wrong. Make an assertive point.

    Just recently District Judge Rogers is reported to have said that some of their evidence in a recent county court case was 'tantamount to perjury'. If that's the case at court level in front of a judge, what would stop them at POPLA level?

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/parkingeye-witness-tantamount-to-perjury.html

    Not something the Holy Trinity Church should be too proud of from their contractor! . Send the vicar a copy of that! Ask him to pray for them next Sunday!
    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.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Sep 17, 10:09 PM
    • 15,502 Posts
    • 19,590 Thanks
    Redx
    I thought you would have known by now that POFA2012 is NOT mandatory , so they have done nothing "wrong" but you are misinterpreting their failure

    the real question to ask is this (assuming its true)

    as keeper, why are PE issuing me with a ticket and a popla code when they have failed POFA2012 and so cannot hold a KEEPER liable for the parking charge notice ?

    as keeper, I can simply say FRO and chase the driver , who shall not be named

    so they have failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper because they are not following POFA2012

    this is the "slam dunk golden ticket" mentioned earlier

    if people blab about who was driving , all the above is irrelevant , which is why we need people who come here to stop "blabbing" about it

    so if they have provided their evidence pack (not a defence) then you need to highlight their failures in a concise rebuttal , and submit it before the 7 day deadline

    contracts , signage , pofa 2012 , grace periods etc all feature in such rebuttals
    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
    • TalkGirl_uk
    • By TalkGirl_uk 15th Sep 17, 1:04 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    TalkGirl_uk
    Okay right i understand, being honest i did not realise that POFA2012 was not mandatory. Everyday a school day!

    Regardless, turns out our comments were not needed as POPLA ruled in our favour so win win!! Thank you all for you help :-)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 12:06 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,420 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yay!

    Well done - and of course, as expected because you couldn't be held liable. What did the decision say, please post it (broken into paragraphs, not POPLA's wall of text) in the POPLA Decisions thread, saying which PPC you beat and giving a link back to this thread.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

829Posts Today

5,664Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • 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

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin