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
    • Silverscreen
    • By Silverscreen 9th Sep 17, 11:23 PM
    • 42Posts
    • 13Thanks
    Silverscreen
    Premier Park, Parc Tawe Swansea
    • #1
    • 9th Sep 17, 11:23 PM
    Premier Park, Parc Tawe Swansea 9th Sep 17 at 11:23 PM
    Hi, I have gone through the process of appealing to the PPC and have received the POPLA code.
    I've read on a few threads on here that I should complain to the landowner as well before lodging a POPLA appeal.
    What is the best way to go about writing the letter? Or if there are any templates I should follow?

    I have got the landowner details already so just need to put something onto an email.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Sep 17, 11:35 PM
    • 15,523 Posts
    • 24,245 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 9th Sep 17, 11:35 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Sep 17, 11:35 PM
    What is the best way to go about writing the letter? Or if there are any templates I should follow?
    By putting pen to paper (or fingers to keypad).

    No templates, but there's a major link to a thread in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 covering complaints from which you might get some ideas to develop your own. The main advice is to 'tell it from the heart'.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 17, 11:52 PM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 9th Sep 17, 11:52 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Sep 17, 11:52 PM
    Bear in mind the POPLA code will last just over 30 days, so if you think it runs out in a couple of days (after 28) you will in fact, have 3 or 4 more.

    Just say it like it is, in the complaint. How upset the whole family is, ask them to cancel it. Simple.
    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.

    • Silverscreen
    • By Silverscreen 24th Sep 17, 9:35 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Silverscreen
    • #4
    • 24th Sep 17, 9:35 PM
    • #4
    • 24th Sep 17, 9:35 PM
    No reply from landlords unfortunately (emailed 3 people from the company). last day for POPLA so submitted the appeal. Letter was copied from someone else on the forum who had the same issue with Premier park luckily i guess (or unluckily).

    I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from Premier Park Limited at Parc Tawe North Retail Park Car Park.

    To protect the driver, they have not been named.

    My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:

    1) Notice to keeper not delivered in compliance with the requirements of POFA.
    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3) The two BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods either side of actual parking time were not properly applied.
    4) No keeper liability
    5) Inadequate signage
    1. Notice to keeper not delivered in compliance with the requirements of POFA

    In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a notice to keeper in full compliance with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier did not comply.

    Non-compliance with Paragraph 9 (2) (e)

    This Paragraph requires that the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper:

    (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
    (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

    Premier’s notice to keeper does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

    Non-compliance with Paragraph 9 (2) (f)

    This Paragraph requires that the notice must warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given:

    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph © or (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

    • The notice to keeper is dated Monday 24th July 2017.

    • 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.

    • If the notice to keeper had been posted on Monday 24th July 2017 (which Premier has not proven) it would be deemed to have been given on Wednesday 26th July 2017.

    • The period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given would therefore cover the period from Thursday 27th July – Wednesday 23rd August 2017 inclusive.

    • According to Paragraph 8 (2) (f), Thursday 24th August 2017 would be the first day after this period of 28 days i.e. the first day that the right to recover payment from the keeper existed.

    The PCN issued states “if within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle.”

    This is not consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 8 (2) (f) of Schedule 4 of POFA as demonstrated below:

    • The notice to keeper is dated Monday 24th July 2017.

    • Even if it is assumed that the notice was posted on Monday 24th July 2017 and even if the date of posting is not counted, this 29 day period referred to in Premier’s notice to keeper would cover the period from Friday 25th July – Tuesday 22nd August 2017 inclusive.

    • According to Premier, Monday 21st August 2017 would be the first day when it would have the right to recover payment from the keeper

    Thus Premier is seeking to claim keeper liability three days too soon.

    I draw POPLA’s attention to the reverse of the notice to keeper in which Premier states that if you would like us to review this Parking Charge within 29 days of receiving this letter please either.....

    With regard to establishing keeper liability, if Premier had intended to claim that it had the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if payment had not been made or the driver’s details not been provided within 29 days of receiving this letter, the notice to keeper would have explicitly said so. However, the notice to keeper did not and POPLA has no right to interpret Premier’s statement "if within 29 days" as meaning that this must apply from the date of service rather than the date of posting.

    Non-compliance with Paragraph 9 (2) (i)

    This Paragraph requires that the notice must specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

    Premier’s notice to keeper merely states a “Date” of 27th July 2017 which may or may not have been the date that the notice was actually sent or given. Therefore the notice to keeper fails to specify the date on which it was sent or given.

    As a consequence of its failure to comply with POFA, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA must determine that Premier’s claim is invalid.

    Should Premier try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

    https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

    I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

    “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.......
    .......... However keeper information is obtained, 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”.

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

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an un-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    3) The two BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods either side of actual parking time were not properly applied.

    The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.

    The CoP states (my bold):

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go...
    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.

    For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any signs to read & observe the signage terms, before staying.

    Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

    Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods

    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    The observation period (at the start)
    The BPA (Kelvin Reynolds is the Director of Policy & Public Affairs) is on record as shown above, as saying that the 'observation period' at the start might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes, depending on various factors.

    On the day in question Parc Tawe North Retail Park was exceptionally busy, due the very wet weather as well as it being the busy shopping period on the weekend. The car park opposite side was also undergoing renovations so parking was limited and Parc Tawe North Retail Park would have had extra cars looking to park there that day.

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/how-swansea-shopping-centre-looks-13155052

    Given the nature of the day, finding a space would have taken an extended period of time, due to the large number of visitors traversing the car park, and the large number of cars blocking the car park waiting for spaces.

    How would it occur to any reasonable person to account for the time taken to get into the busy car park when ensuring they were back at their car within the maximum parking period?

    The grace period (at the end)
    The BPA CoP allows a MINIMUM of ten minutes just to leave, the car park, given the day in question mentioned above, leaving the car park would have taken just as long as entering the car park, and as such it is not unreasonable to expect that more than ten minutes were taken, simply getting to the exit of the car park and having to wait for other cars to clear the road.

    The ANPR photos on the PCN show an arrival time of 14:32:38 and a departure time of 17:48:19. Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account and considering the location of the car park, and the exceptional volume of people and cars in the car park due to the event on the day in question, I contend that the PCN was not properly given.
    Last edited by Silverscreen; 24-09-2017 at 9:37 PM.
    • Silverscreen
    • By Silverscreen 24th Sep 17, 9:36 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Silverscreen
    • #5
    • 24th Sep 17, 9:36 PM
    • #5
    • 24th Sep 17, 9:36 PM
    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially 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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator 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.

    Furthermore, 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.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.’'

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

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    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:






    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.
    [IMG]file:///C:/Users/SILVER~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.jpg[/IMG]


    As you can see from the images above, taken from the driver’s perspective inside the carpark, 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 (especially in wet weather as it was in this case), 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.

    Specifically missing from the signs (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside/at the site boundary. It is not stated that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay' for the purpose of generating profit from PCNs.

    In fact, any reasonable driver would believe that they are authorised to park and rely on their own timekeeping. In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as with car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: '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'.

    and Paragraph 69: 'Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.'

    The driver could never guess that they are responsible for taking into account a period that is somehow back-timed to include a secret timing when the clock started (unbeknown to drivers) from their arrival in moving traffic from the road. If they are, then this must be transparently stated at the entrance and the machine clocks must be set to start a period of parking from arrival, by linking the systems.

    Withholding material information from a consumer regarding the 'time when the clock starts ticking' and the commercial purpose of the ANPR cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

    Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—!
    (a) the commercial practice omits material information,

    (b) the commercial practice hides material information,

    (c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

    (d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,

    and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
    will update when i receive POPLA reply.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 25th Sep 17, 3:52 PM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #6
    • 25th Sep 17, 3:52 PM
    • #6
    • 25th Sep 17, 3:52 PM
    When did you get the pcn? Was it during the period when they were (still are) doing all the building work which threw the entire carpark into chaos? This might encourage the landowner to be a bit more helpful as it really was chaos there. Or was it the carpark over the road by Homebase? If the latter, I thought they didn't do windscreen tickets but do postal NtKs, which are valid if served within 14 days (provided they satisfy the rest of POFA)?
    • Silverscreen
    • By Silverscreen 2nd Oct 17, 9:49 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Silverscreen
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:49 AM
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:49 AM
    Sorry haven't been on last few days tp read the last post. I received a reply from the landowner and after an exchange of emails, she kindly agreed to cancel the ticket but i have already put my POPLA appeal in. She is now asking for me to withdraw the POPLA so she can cancel the ticket, just checking i am ok to withdraw?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    Yes, do that if you have an assurance the charge will be cancelled. Put that in writing/in an email, state that you are relying on her promise that the charge WILL be cancelled in full, and require confirmation once that has been done.
    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.

    • Silverscreen
    • By Silverscreen 2nd Oct 17, 5:28 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Silverscreen
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 5:28 PM
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 5:28 PM
    Woohoo, POPLA appeal withdrawn and ticket cancelled. I double checked on their website.
    I would like to thank everyone on here for their support!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 6:41 PM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hooray - scam over!
    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

2,706Posts Today

9,180Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Sadly for those buying jointly "Where there are joint purchasers, all purchasers would need to be first-time buyers. "

  • First time buyers usually defined as someone who has never owned or part owned a property https://t.co/yM3urZNs8z

  • You will not pay stamp duty https://t.co/vHoCWiUXfo

  • Follow Martin