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
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 19th Aug 17, 10:57 AM
    • 105Posts
    • 32Thanks
    DD1A
    After just winning a POPLA!
    • #1
    • 19th Aug 17, 10:57 AM
    After just winning a POPLA! 19th Aug 17 at 10:57 AM
    I thought we got away from these crooks for a while but now again. Pulled into a just recently changed over to anpr parking spot where it used to be Pay and Display. We pulled up for 15 car was fully occupied didn't get out as we were looking at the map and deciding where to go next on our weekend adventure. Week and half later this comes through the door!

    Will just appealing with his story win it?

    Last edited by DD1A; 19-08-2017 at 11:01 AM.
Page 2
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Oct 17, 10:46 AM
    • 4,736 Posts
    • 3,077 Thanks
    KeithP
    Ten days since your first appeal was refused.

    How's your POPLA appeal coming along?
    Please don't miss the deadline.
    Please don't leave it to the last minute.
    .
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Oct 17, 4:25 PM
    • 40,515 Posts
    • 80,908 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    We weent for a little trip the other day and the signange is dreadful I took a load of pictures which I will put together for the popla and repost. Any key pointers I should put across other than the obvious in clear signage
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/152664254@N06/shares/458k15
    Originally posted by DD1A
    With regards to the first five pics, what do the signs look like if you approach from the right? Might a driver miss the ones on the lamp post and then miss the one on the left as they came round the corner looking down the long drive for cars and pedestrians. It must be possible to take a shot of that exact scenario.

    The £80 charge is not saved by the Beavis case.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 07-10-2017 at 4:30 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 13th Oct 17, 12:48 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    Ten days since your first appeal was refused.

    How's your POPLA appeal coming along?
    Please don't miss the deadline.
    Please don't leave it to the last minute.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Shoot I thought popla was another 28 days from the first refusal with the issues popla code!?!?
    I’ve been so busy with work and building works going on at home
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 13th Oct 17, 12:56 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    With regards to the first five pics, what do the signs look like if you approach from the right? Might a driver miss the ones on the lamp post and then miss the one on the left as they came round the corner looking down the long drive for cars and pedestrians. It must be possible to take a shot of that exact scenario.

    The £80 charge is not saved by the Beavis case.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    That is very true when entering with carpark on your right. Nice point made
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 13th Oct 17, 12:59 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. You can make an appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) within 28 days online at www.popla.co.uk with the following reference number 241********. Alternatively, if you wish to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service by post a copy of the appeal application can be sent at your request. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate will be at an end. If you opt to pay the parking charge notice you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

    You had me all worried then...
    • paulstevens64
    • By paulstevens64 13th Oct 17, 11:11 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 57 Thanks
    paulstevens64
    Yes I totally agree I have been bombarded with work and family things and completely forgot now I'm back from work I will get back to my original thread and post the POPLA reply etc in correct area
    Originally posted by DD1A
    Hi DD1A,


    You have still not managed to add your successful appeal outcome to your previous thread. These are vital, to help the community to refine the advice given, to keep improving the amount that we win.
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 13th Oct 17, 8:44 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    I’m pretty sure I done this the other month.
    It was done and posted where CM said. I just copied and pasted the reply to my thread as well.
    Last edited by DD1A; 13-10-2017 at 8:53 PM.
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 16th Oct 17, 10:03 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    Only have a week left I believe ��
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Oct 17, 10:08 PM
    • 51,719 Posts
    • 65,369 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You are best copying it here in full, but beware of copying from Word. Read this thread:


    More people will look if you post your POPLA appeal in full, not in Dropbox.
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Oct 17, 10:30 PM
    • 4,736 Posts
    • 3,077 Thanks
    KeithP
    Do you want people to help you?

    If so, you must make things as easy as you can.

    Perhaps if you were to take a few moments to space that better, e.g. paragraphs, blank line between paragraphs, some one might help.

    Did you read that link that C-M posted?
    .
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 16th Oct 17, 10:32 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    My pdf is clear I only just posted it and noticed it’s not spaced correctly
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 16th Oct 17, 10:36 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    It’s basically copied and paste of a perfect example CM posted on the forum as it work perfectly with this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Oct 17, 11:04 PM
    • 51,719 Posts
    • 65,369 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's only one appeal point, about signage. That misses out the usual other things; it's merely one point made.

    Normally we expect to see 3 or 4 points to any POPLA appeal. Very dodgy to rely on a single appeal point. What about landowner authority?
    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.

    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 17th Oct 17, 10:53 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    ok i have put managed to put in as much time as i could tonight im starting to feel like giving in and pay it as just dont have the time and patience anymore, here goes

    POPLA Ref: #############
    ECP Ref: ########

    A notice to keeper was issued on ####### and received by me, the registered keeper of ####### for an alleged contravention of “Breach of Terms and Conditions: No valid pay and display/permit was purchased” at Wish Street - Rye. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
    1. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    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.
    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
    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    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:

    https://imgur.com/a/AkMCN



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

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg


    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.

    As you can see from the attached photos taken from the site 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:

    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.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

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

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

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

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

    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.

    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 signs are clearly vis 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.
    Below are images taken from the ECP site,
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Oct 17, 11:31 PM
    • 15,900 Posts
    • 24,655 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    ok i have put managed to put in as much time as i could tonight im starting to feel like giving in and pay it as just dont have the time and patience anymore, here goes
    Despite the time and patience given to you by complete strangers, willing to help with your problem - freely of their own time and completely unconditionally?

    We are not some Civil Service Department helpline, required (paid) to provide free advice and guidance which can be discarded by recipients at a whim, open to gratuitous disdain if what we say doesn’t suit. We are as much, if not far more greatly appalled by this private parking scandal that afflicts the country at a macro level - and you at micro level - to invest huge amounts of our own precious time. Mrs U is often exasperated by the time I spend on the forum; other regulars will no doubt experience similar levels of partner frustration.

    Sometimes I do wonder why we do? Nonetheless......

    Your car was only in that car park for 15 minutes, yet there is no apparent evidence in your draft POPLA appeal that you are attempting to invoke BPA Grace Periods (note plural) to cover the stay - see BPA Code of Practice clause 13.

    That needs to be articulated and added.

    that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.
    What is ‘non-compliant’ about the ECP NtK? Are you sure?

    Get this all tidied up and clearly laid out and you will win easily - this is only ECP for goodness sake, hardly ever done a court case in their life, why on earth would you contemplate opening your wallet to them?

    http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html
    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.
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 18th Oct 17, 9:59 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    I do fully appreciate all you incredible people putting time into assisting! I leave my house for work every morning at 5:30 and dont get home till 7pm with 2 children there is next to no time to ever seem to do anything.

    This is a very good point about the grace period thanks i will get onto this.

    im not hence why im appreciating your support
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 18th Oct 17, 10:23 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    i cannot seem to find any other appeals or examples for the grace period on the forum..?
    am i looking in the wrong place or using the wrong search field..
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 18th Oct 17, 11:16 AM
    • 332 Posts
    • 330 Thanks
    claxtome
    Although not completely the same my 'In car park less than 6 mins' thread which is currently at waiting POPLA appeal stage had details about grace periods and was an ANPR car park.
    Fill your boots->
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5693229&page=2#24
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 18th Oct 17, 11:23 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    POPLA Ref: #############
    ECP Ref: ########

    A notice to keeper was issued on ####### and received by me, the registered keeper of ####### for an alleged contravention of “Breach of Terms and Conditions: No valid pay and display/permit was purchased” at Wish Street - Rye. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
    1. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    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 or grace period.

    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.
    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

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced. Full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:- Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    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.
    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 18 of the BPA CoP explains valid Entrance signs which in this case is not.
    18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this which is covered by appendix B
    Paragraph 13 of the BPA CoP states “reasonable and visable” Grace periods
    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.
    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf

    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:

    https://imgur.com/a/AkMCN



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

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg


    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.

    As you can see from the attached photos taken from the site the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden. 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.
    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 13 of the BPA CoP states “reasonable and visable” Grace periods
    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.


    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:

    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.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

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

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

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

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

    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.


    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 signs are clearly vis 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.
    Below are images taken from the ECP site,
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 18th Oct 17, 11:31 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    DD1A
    This is the hidious entrance

    Rye Carpark ,

    Rye Carpark
    Last edited by DD1A; 18-10-2017 at 11:36 AM.
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

4,124Posts Today

7,687Users online

Martin's Twitter