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
    • richard-
    • By richard- 20th Sep 17, 9:48 PM
    • 130Posts
    • 17Thanks
    richard-
    Private parking ticket appeal
    • #1
    • 20th Sep 17, 9:48 PM
    Private parking ticket appeal 20th Sep 17 at 9:48 PM
    Can anybody help me out

    I received the following NTK letter by post (fig. 1). The car park is a visitor car park, no permit required from 6am-12am (daytime hours). Parked in the car park at 6.45am

    The following is shown as signage (fig. 2) and visitors see the following notice in the car park of parking times (fig. 3).

    The letter was received by post, within 14 days by requesting dvla data.

    I emailed the below response:

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I note your notice to Keeper dated xx xx 2017 I have, as requested forwarded this document to the driver of the vehicle at the time. There is no presumption in law that the Keeper of a vehicle is also the driver unless proven otherwise. Please provide all evidence you will rely upon that proves the identity of the driver, as you will be aware you must prove your claim initially.

    You do not seem to be making use of the provisions of POFA then I, the keeper, cannot possibly be held liable for the transgressions of the driver.

    There is no reason in law that they registered keeper can reasonable be assumed to be the driver. Elliot v Loake, a criminal case with clear forensic evidence, does not help you here, unless of course you can provide suitable forensic evidence.

    Your signs are of a prohibitive nature and therefore cannot possibly form a contract that be breached.

    I do not expect to hear from you again, other than to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter.
    I received unsuccessful appeal reply. (fig. 4, fig. 5)

    Can anybody assist what to do with the appeal?

    Thank you in advance

    fig. 1


    fig. 2


    fig. 3


    fig. 4


    fig. 5
    Last edited by richard-; 03-10-2017 at 10:02 PM.
    Audi - Vorsprung durch Technik
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 20th Sep 17, 9:52 PM
    • 33,482 Posts
    • 17,361 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 20th Sep 17, 9:52 PM
    • #2
    • 20th Sep 17, 9:52 PM
    Read up on preparing s popla appeal in the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum.

    Put it up here for comments before sending it
    • Redx
    • By Redx 20th Sep 17, 9:54 PM
    • 16,895 Posts
    • 20,992 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 20th Sep 17, 9:54 PM
    • #3
    • 20th Sep 17, 9:54 PM
    see post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread about popla appeals

    the PPC is 1parking
    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
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 21st Sep 17, 8:13 AM
    • 10,250 Posts
    • 9,381 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #4
    • 21st Sep 17, 8:13 AM
    • #4
    • 21st Sep 17, 8:13 AM
    Am I getting this correctly?
    The car park is free from 6 am till midnight.
    You parked at 6.45 am.
    The signs confirm the time it is free.
    They have turned down your appeal.

    If that is correct, you don't need much help here.

    Appeal to POPLA on that one point with the evidence of the signs and you can not lose.

    Personally, I would let them take me to court, threaten them with a Data Protection claim and make them lose a bundle.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 17, 8:59 AM
    • 33,482 Posts
    • 17,361 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 21st Sep 17, 8:59 AM
    • #5
    • 21st Sep 17, 8:59 AM
    Am I getting this correctly?
    The car park is free from 6 am till midnight.
    You parked at 6.45 am.
    The signs confirm the time it is free.
    They have turned down your appeal.

    If that is correct, you don't need much help here.

    Appeal to POPLA on that one point with the evidence of the signs and you can not lose.

    Personally, I would let them take me to court, threaten them with a Data Protection claim and make them lose a bundle.
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    The signs confirm it's free only for visitors to the businesses
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 21st Sep 17, 10:26 AM
    • 10,250 Posts
    • 9,381 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #6
    • 21st Sep 17, 10:26 AM
    • #6
    • 21st Sep 17, 10:26 AM
    The signs confirm it's free only for visitors to the businesses
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Don't think is says "only" and the larger type sentence saying that it is free from 6am till midnight has no addendum saying it was free for visitors only. In fact, it says that parking restrictions apply only from midnight till 6am.

    Don't know if OP was a visitor to one of the businesses or not.

    No restrictions on leaving site if OP arrived early and then went for a breakfast till the business he was visiting opened.

    The wording is too loose for the claim to stick.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 17, 11:08 AM
    • 33,482 Posts
    • 17,361 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #7
    • 21st Sep 17, 11:08 AM
    • #7
    • 21st Sep 17, 11:08 AM
    On the photo I have downloaded it says:


    "Parking on this level is free for visitors to businesses", and to get a one night permit from one of the businesses if you want to park there overnight
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 17, 11:57 AM
    • 51,672 Posts
    • 65,330 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 21st Sep 17, 11:57 AM
    • #8
    • 21st Sep 17, 11:57 AM
    And how will the PPC evidence whether the driver/passengers were visitors to businesses? That's a section for POPLA.
    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.

    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 17, 12:05 PM
    • 33,482 Posts
    • 17,361 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #9
    • 21st Sep 17, 12:05 PM
    • #9
    • 21st Sep 17, 12:05 PM
    Hopefully the OP can get the business to get it cancelled
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 21st Sep 17, 12:54 PM
    • 10,250 Posts
    • 9,381 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    On the photo I have downloaded it says:


    "Parking on this level is free for visitors to businesses", and to get a one night permit from one of the businesses if you want to park there overnight
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Is that fig 2? I was referring to fig 3 which has no such restriction.

    The permit obviously applies to overnight parking.

    The signs are, at best, confusing and in that case, the interpretation that is in the consumer's favour wins.

    My appeal would be based on fig 3 and, of course, the location of the signs is important as to which one would be most likely to have been seen by the motorist. There is no "see other signs in car park for full details" on fig 3.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 17, 1:06 PM
    • 33,482 Posts
    • 17,361 Thanks
    Quentin
    Is that fig 2? I was referring to fig 3 which has no such restriction....

    .
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    I don't see any picture in fig 3, just a blurred thumbnail which is just this link to a photo:


    https://imageshack.com/f/poPmdx9Rp (takes you to a download link)


    Which has the wording I quoted
    Last edited by Quentin; 21-09-2017 at 3:08 PM.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 21st Sep 17, 6:40 PM
    • 10,250 Posts
    • 9,381 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    I don't see any picture in fig 3, just a blurred thumbnail which is just this link to a photo:


    https://imageshack.com/f/poPmdx9Rp (takes you to a download link)


    Which has the wording I quoted
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Sorry, You are correct about the wording on a permit for overnight. It was a little too small and light to read on my tablet.

    However, it does not say that parking is ONLY free for visitors to the businesses. It says that between 6am and midnight you do not need at ticket. This is in a separate paragraph, in larger text and is no way linked to the bit about car parking on this level being free for business visitors.

    Of course, OP has not said that he parked on the level in question and if he parked on another level, then that's a different story.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 17, 7:16 PM
    • 33,482 Posts
    • 17,361 Thanks
    Quentin
    You keep referring to the wording of the notice.


    But this does say "Parking on this level is free for visitors to businesses".


    My pointing this out was really so that the OP didn't expect to just appeal on the one point (as advised in your #4) and couldn't lose.


    Submitting a full blown POPLA with as many points as possible means only one has to be a winner - but if the OP loses on signage and it's his only point then he is left in limbo unnecessarily


    (If the OP didn't park on this floor then it was pointless him wanting to use a photo of that sign as his "one point" appeal)
    Last edited by Quentin; 21-09-2017 at 8:11 PM.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 21st Sep 17, 7:30 PM
    • 10,250 Posts
    • 9,381 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    You keep referring to the wording of the notice.


    But this does say that parking on that floor is free for visitors to businesses. But it does NOT say that you can't park there or have to pay if you are not a visitor to the business nor does it say that you can't leave site if you are waiting for the business to open. OP hasn't stated if they were visiting business or not.


    My pointing this out was really so that the OP didn't expect to just appeal on the one point (as advised in your #4) and couldn't lose.


    Submitting a full blown POPLA with as many points as possible means only one has to be a winner - but if the OP loses on signage and it's his only point then he is left in limbo unnecessarily That is correct.


    (If the OP didn't park on this floor then it was pointless him wanting to use a photo of that sign as his "one point" appeal)
    Originally posted by Quentin
    We need the OP to come back with more info and where he is with this.
    • richard-
    • By richard- 25th Sep 17, 9:01 PM
    • 130 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    richard-
    Thanks for the replies.

    The driver parked in the visitor area parking, the sign confirms that parking is free during these hours, and met with colleague who visited one establishment and then went elsewhere in the complex.
    Audi - Vorsprung durch Technik
    • richard-
    • By richard- 28th Sep 17, 9:35 AM
    • 130 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    richard-
    Hi guys, is anybody able to help with what I should send over to popla? Should I write on the one point of the fig. 3 signage? I only have a week remaining to organise what to send over.
    Audi - Vorsprung durch Technik
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 28th Sep 17, 1:29 PM
    • 4,731 Posts
    • 3,066 Thanks
    KeithP
    Hi guys, is anybody able to help with what I should send over to popla? Should I write on the one point of the fig. 3 signage? I only have a week remaining to organise what to send over.
    Originally posted by richard-
    Still waiting to see your draft POPLA appeal.

    Over a week ago the following suggestions were made:
    Read up on preparing s popla appeal in the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum.

    Put it up here for comments before sending it
    Originally posted by Quentin
    see post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread about popla appeals
    Originally posted by Redx
    What has happened during the last eight days?
    .
    • richard-
    • By richard- 3rd Oct 17, 9:31 PM
    • 130 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    richard-
    Can someone take a look if the following is acceptable to send to popla. I will attach fig. 3 from this above (post 1) to send across. Thank you

    POPLA No:
    PCN No:
    Company: One Parking Solution

    A notice to keeper was issued on xx August 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of xx on xx August 2017 for an alleged contravention of “Unauthorised Parking’’ at xx. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal and cancel the charge based on the following grounds:

    1) Misleading and unclear signage
    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
    4) This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
    5) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012



    1. 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.

    The parking sign seen by the driver states that parking is free between the hours of 06:00am and 12.00am seven days a week, ref attached evidence fig. 1 and fig. 2. There is no entry sign visible when entering or leaving.

    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:

    http://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.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

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

    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 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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

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

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

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

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    3. 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.''


    4. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis

    The operator makes much of the Beavis case, yet they are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different. Essentially, that case was about the abuse of a free, time-limited public car park where signage could be used to create a secondary contract arising from a relevant obligation and where there was a 'legitimate interest' flowing from the landowner, in charging more than could normally be pursued for trespass.

    In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately and there has been no loss nor detriment caused to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that this 'fine' is a conscionable amount to be charged under these circumstances.

    At the Supreme Court in Beavis, it was held at 14: “…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty… ''

    This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32 in the Beavis decision, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

    Therefore, any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

    Schedule 2: 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair':

    ’’A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations…’’

    ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

    This charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which does NOT supersede other defences. It turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification. This case is not comparable.

    In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would agree to a term where parking in a place that they enjoy rights of way and easements and pay a significant rent for the privilege of peaceful enjoyment would also accept a further unknown/not agreed liability. I would suggest that a court would not accept this is reasonable and indeed my next appeal point shows that a Senior Circuit Judge in a 2016 appeal case supports my view.


    5. The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, One Parking Solution has the right 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, One Parking Solution 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.
    Last edited by richard-; 03-10-2017 at 11:20 PM.
    Audi - Vorsprung durch Technik
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 12:45 AM
    • 51,672 Posts
    • 65,330 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would remove #4 which doesn't assist (and makes no sense because it talks about rights of way and easements and paying a significant rent - final paragraph!).

    Replace it with a section talking about:

    No contravention of the signs on site:
    The driver parked in the visitor area parking, the sign confirms that parking is free during these hours (from 6am), and met with colleague who visited one establishment and then went elsewhere in the complex. The operator's sign sets out (apart from a minuscule font sentence about Blue badges) three different scenarios, in bullet points, whereby drivers ARE permitted to park. There is no evidence whatsoever that the car driver was not so permitted, because there is no requirement for all cars to display a permit within those three vague bullet points.

    Here is the sign the driver relied upon which proves that parking is free and unrestricted from 6am:
    Then show the actual photo of that '6am' sign, embedded as a picture in your word document - do NOT make the Assessor have to download pics like we just had to, or even click on a link.

    Even in the template appeal point #1 about dodgy signs, the 'links' (e.g. to the Beavis sign) are meant to be actual embedded images to illustrate the word document - not links, except where unavoidable, where the link isn't an actual image.

    You POPLA appeal should look like an illustrated story - one single PDF, no separate other uploads. Make it easy for the Assessor (in fact in your case it's dead easy and you will win).

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 04-10-2017 at 12:47 AM.
    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.

    • richard-
    • By richard- 4th Oct 17, 9:33 AM
    • 130 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    richard-
    Okay sure thank you coupon-mad I will create a pdf with all the relivent details. You are so helpful, I will keep you updated when I receive a response
    Audi - Vorsprung durch Technik
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,799Posts Today

6,969Users online

Martin's Twitter