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
    • Heika
    • By Heika 6th Oct 17, 9:49 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Heika
    UKPC Charge
    • #1
    • 6th Oct 17, 9:49 PM
    UKPC Charge 6th Oct 17 at 9:49 PM
    Hello everyone

    I've received a PCN from UKPC. The reason being "Vehicle owner/driver left site", and issued barely 10 minutes after initial sighting. Wow. Apparently the driver took a shortcut through a fence to get to the fast food place which is situated on the retail park (which has free parking, might I add). Driver probably should've just spent a little more time walking to avoid this hassle...

    Photographs show only the vehicle and signs from afar. As suspected, the initial appeal failed and I've been given a POPLA code. No NTK.

    I've had a look at the NEWBIE thread and various other threads and have composed the appeal below. If there are any corrections required can they please be pointed out, thanks.

    1. Basic mitigating circumstances

    The car park itself offers free parking. Therefore, any driver that parks their vehicle in carefully, thoughtfully and seemingly lawfully in an unrestricted area, then it would be fair and reasonable to consider it a suitable place to park.

    The signage in the car park is found at a height of approximately 8 feet in the air. The full wording is not easily readable from head height unless in extremely close proximity. The excerpt photograph shows the view of the signage from adult head height at a distance of just 3 feet and illustrates that the terms and conditions are exceptionally difficult to read. In a free car park, a driver would not be in any way inclined to approach such a sign as there would be no reasonable expectation of incurring any penalty.


    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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. 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, 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.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    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."


    3. Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    UKPC has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put UKPC to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). UKPC have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts or in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that UKPC are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to pursue charges in their own right.

    The reason that the contract cannot merely be signed by a lessee, occupier or managing agent is found in the case of Devere Parking Services v Mr X, claim number A3QZ5517 at Bournemouth on 3/4/2014, where DJ Williams decided the claim must fail despite a witness statement from an agent/occupier. This was because the contract was not in the name of the landowner. The occupier/agent could theoretically have permission to sign the contract, but even if they did, they would have to sign 'on behalf of' the landowner, not themselves. So I contend UKPC only have a contract with a managing agent or lessee and so this is not sufficient to prove the actual landowner has authorised their operation. In a recent case in September 2014 (about Highview Parking) the Assessor concluded 'I am unable to determine who the landowner is and so cannot find that the operator has the authority of the landowner for their activities. Therefore I cannot find that the charge notice is valid.'


    4. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
    '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

    Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    I contend that it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs placed some 7 to 8 feet above ground level and way over head height, in a ‘free’ car park, in attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where by the alleged parking infringement, no loss had occurred. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge is reasonable.


    5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
    As stated in the BPA code 18.1 “You must use signs to make it easy...to find out what your terms and conditions are.” BPA code 18.2 states “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.”

    BPA code 18.3 states “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

    The car park entrance is on a road crossing where traffic is coming from three different sides, entering and exiting the car park. The driver’s attention is therefore focused on the traffic, not to a parking sign amongst other signs on the side of the entrance where you are least likely to look due to the position of the other moving vehicles around you.

    This concept of clarity is also stated in case law. When giving judgment in Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeals, Lord Denning stated that this was not “drawn to his attention in the most explicit way. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.”

    Due to the above points, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    • 6,484 Posts
    • 8,317 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 6th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    Hello everyone

    I've received a PCN from UKPC. The reason being "Vehicle owner/driver left site", and issued barely 10 minutes after initial sighting. Wow. Apparently the driver took a shortcut through a fence to get to the fast food place which is situated on the retail park (which has free parking, might I add). Driver probably should've just spent a little more time walking to avoid this hassle...

    Photographs show only the vehicle and signs from afar. As suspected, the initial appeal failed and I've been given a POPLA code. No NTK.

    I've had a look at the NEWBIE thread and various other threads and have composed the appeal below. If there are any corrections required can they please be pointed out, thanks.
    Originally posted by Heika
    UKPC love this little wheeze but proving it is another thing

    UKPC are the famous fakers of pictures with staff hiding
    behind wheelie bins as well.

    Did they actually say you walked through a fence. ????
    If that is so it's predatory

    Wait for yor POPLA code and then we can help you

    UKPC certainly need to show pictures of your great escape
    from the car park
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Heika
    • By Heika 11th Oct 17, 7:21 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Heika
    • #3
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:21 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:21 PM
    Thanks, that's reassuring. Is there nothing wrong with the POPLA appeal written above?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 11th Oct 17, 7:34 PM
    • 40,523 Posts
    • 80,921 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #4
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:34 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:34 PM
    UKPC love this little wheeze but proving it is another thing

    UKPC are the famous fakers of pictures with staff hiding
    behind wheelie bins as well.

    Did they actually say you the driver walked through a fence. ????
    If that is so it's predatory

    Wait for yor POPLA code and then we can help you

    UKPC certainly need to show pictures of your great escape
    from the car park
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Corrected for you Mr B.

    The OP says they have a PoPLA code but has not received a NTK.

    The scammers cannot possibly know the identity of the owner as those details are not held by the DVLA.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 11-10-2017 at 7:52 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
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 11th Oct 17, 7:40 PM
    • 40,523 Posts
    • 80,921 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #5
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:40 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:40 PM
    Thanks, that's reassuring. Is there nothing wrong with the POPLA appeal written above?
    Originally posted by Heika
    Mitigation doesn't work so the first paragraph in point 1 should be deleted. The rest of point 1 deals with signage so should be incorporated with that point.

    However, the signage template appeal point in the NEWBIES thread is much longer than yours so you should use that and embed the signs in your appeal.

    I believe UTCCR 1999 has been replaced.

    You need to state that the scammers have not provided any proof that an occupant of the car left the site.

    Have a look at the other template appeal points in the NEWBIES as yours don't seem to be the most up to date.
    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
    • Heika
    • By Heika 14th Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Heika
    • #6
    • 14th Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    • #6
    • 14th Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    Thanks Fruitcake. I've had a look at the NEWBIES thread and it seems there was another person in a similar predicament, so have taken their appeal as the base:

    I am appealing on the following points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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. 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, 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.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    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."

    3. Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    UKPC has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put UKPC to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). UKPC have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts or in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that UKPC are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to pursue charges in their own right.

    The reason that the contract cannot merely be signed by a lessee, occupier or managing agent is found in the case of Devere Parking Services v Mr X, claim number A3QZ5517 at Bournemouth on 3/4/2014, where DJ Williams decided the claim must fail despite a witness statement from an agent/occupier. This was because the contract was not in the name of the landowner. The occupier/agent could theoretically have permission to sign the contract, but even if they did, they would have to sign 'on behalf of' the landowner, not themselves. So I contend UKPC only have a contract with a managing agent or lessee and so this is not sufficient to prove the actual landowner has authorised their operation. In a recent case in September 2014 (about Highview Parking) the Assessor concluded 'I am unable to determine who the landowner is and so cannot find that the operator has the authority of the landowner for their activities. Therefore I cannot find that the charge notice is valid.'

    4. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

    The signage in the car park is found at a height of approximately 8 feet in the air. The full wording is not easily readable from head height unless in extremely close proximity. The excerpt photograph shows the view of the signage from adult head height at a distance of just 3 feet and illustrates that the terms and conditions are exceptionally difficult to read. In a free car park, a driver would not be in any way inclined to approach such a sign as there would be no reasonable expectation of incurring any penalty.

    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:

    --URL here

    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:

    --URL here

    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:

    --URL here

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

    --URL here

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

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    --URL here

    ''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:

    --URL here

    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.


    Due to the above points, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
    • Heika
    • By Heika 17th Oct 17, 7:28 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Heika
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 17, 7:28 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 17, 7:28 PM
    Bump. I'm guessing my revised appeal will work then?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Oct 17, 11:16 PM
    • 51,898 Posts
    • 65,542 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 18th Oct 17, 11:16 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Oct 17, 11:16 PM
    If you never got a NTK, you will win, as long as the driver was never admitted.
    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.

    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 19th Oct 17, 3:26 AM
    • 349 Posts
    • 355 Thanks
    claxtome
    • #9
    • 19th Oct 17, 3:26 AM
    • #9
    • 19th Oct 17, 3:26 AM
    In my limited experience your defence looks ok.

    Was the one you copied a winning POPLA appeal?
    If so no reason it shouldn't be the same for you.
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

3,316Posts Today

7,605Users online

Martin's Twitter