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
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 8th Oct 17, 11:09 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 1Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    Parking Eye - 4 to 5 Months Late
    • #1
    • 8th Oct 17, 11:09 PM
    Parking Eye - 4 to 5 Months Late 8th Oct 17 at 11:09 PM
    Hi guys,

    I just had 4 Parking Eye tickets come through all at the same time for parking dates back in May and June this year (all same car park). Are they late enough on this for me to appeal etc?

    Cheers in advance
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th Oct 17, 11:16 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,066 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 8th Oct 17, 11:16 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Oct 17, 11:16 PM
    same answer as in this similar thread

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5724555

    they must be trawling old tickets
    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
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 17th Oct 17, 12:14 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    • #3
    • 17th Oct 17, 12:14 PM
    • #3
    • 17th Oct 17, 12:14 PM
    UPDATED - 8 tickets now received over 4 months late. I'm assuming appeal with the Blue text in Newbies thread?
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 17th Oct 17, 12:17 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    • #4
    • 17th Oct 17, 12:17 PM
    • #4
    • 17th Oct 17, 12:17 PM
    And appeal each one individually?
    Last edited by SKarTaZ; 17-10-2017 at 12:21 PM. Reason: Typo
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Oct 17, 1:08 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,742 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 17th Oct 17, 1:08 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Oct 17, 1:08 PM
    And appeal each one individually?
    Originally posted by SKarTaZ
    Definitely treat each one individually - a bit inconvenient, but essential that you do it this way.

    Use exactly the same appeal from the sticky, no need to alter in any way, other than to make sure the individual PCN number is entered on each respective appeal.
    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.
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 17th Oct 17, 3:59 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    • #6
    • 17th Oct 17, 3:59 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Oct 17, 3:59 PM
    Thanks Umkommas. I'm just not entirely clear which template to use, since the tickets are for dates from over 4 months ago?

    Should I go with #1:
    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,


    THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER GOES HERE. THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

    NO NEED TO USE YOUR REAL SIGNATURE - BUT DON'T POST UNLESS YOU HAVE TO - ALWAYS USE THE ONLINE APPEAL PAGE BECAUSE THE APPEAL CANNOT GET LOST AND YOU CAN KEEP A SCREEN PRINT. USE ANY EMAIL APPEAL OPTION IF FIRMS OFFER IT.


    Or should I go with #2:

    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. Furthermore, as the PCN did not arrive within the stipulate period of 14 days, as specified within the POFA 2012, you have failed to meet the strict deadlines to transfer liability to the keeper.

    Therefore, there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th Oct 17, 4:05 PM
    • 4,784 Posts
    • 3,135 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 17, 4:05 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 17, 4:05 PM
    UPDATED - 8 tickets now received over 4 months late. I'm assuming appeal with the Blue text in Newbies thread?
    Originally posted by SKarTaZ
    No need to assume that.

    That is exactly what you were advised to do in post #2.
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Oct 17, 4:12 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,066 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 17th Oct 17, 4:12 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Oct 17, 4:12 PM
    use 2 , because they failed the POFA2012 timescales but change

    Should you obtain

    to


    Should you have obtained

    appeal each one separately
    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
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 30th Oct 17, 6:11 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    • #9
    • 30th Oct 17, 6:11 PM
    • #9
    • 30th Oct 17, 6:11 PM
    Update - It was 4 tickets sent twice each. All in the same envelope with the dates on the 1st manipulated to look like they were sent over a week earlier. !!!!!!!s.

    Appealed all 4 and they have obviously rejected all 4 of them . . .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 30th Oct 17, 6:16 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,066 Thanks
    Redx
    so you should have 4 popla codes

    so read recent similar popla appeals like for TOWER ROAD and draft your popla appeal , same one for all of them , although each one needs appealing to popla separately, even if they are all identical apart from the pcn and popla reference numbers

    you will find a few recent winners at the end of the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread

    post the draft on here first
    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 30th Oct 17, 6:22 PM
    • 10,253 Posts
    • 9,388 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. Furthermore, as the PCN did not arrive within the stipulate period of 14 days, as specified within the POFA 2012, you have failed to meet the strict deadlines to transfer liability to the keeper.


    When you do your POPLA appeal, please split these two separate points and make the "Out of time" appeal point the major one.

    Make sure you highlight the date of "offence" and date of NtK when you do. Should be a walk over on that point alone.
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 11th Nov 17, 8:05 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    I'm just drafting my POPLA appeal which I will post in here shortly. Do I need to include pictures of the letter from PE in the appeal (for each one)? Do I need to include pictures I have taken of the signage, considering the event was back in May and I don't recall the signs even being there then. Are they relevant now?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Nov 17, 8:40 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,742 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Do I need to include pictures of the letter from PE in the appeal
    Only if it seriously helps your case. But PE should be putting forward their evidence which should include any documentation they have sent.

    Do I need to include pictures I have taken of the signage, considering the event was back in May and I don't recall the signs even being there then. Are they relevant now?
    Again, if it seriously helps your case.
    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.
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 12th Nov 17, 12:09 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    POPLA Draft
    Dear POPLA,

    On the 03/10/2017, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”

    As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

    1) As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge.
    2) The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace’ Periods
    3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    1) As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge.

    To support this point further the following areas of dispute are raised:

    • The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons
    • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    • The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    • 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.

    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

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

    Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Tuesday 16th May. The relevant period is therefore the 14 day period from Tuesday 16th May 2017 to Monday 29th May 2017 inclusive. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the PCN is Tuesday 3rd October and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on Tuesday 3rd October 2017 (i.e. outside of the relevant period).

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

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

    The 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.''

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

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

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

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

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

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

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

    hxxp://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

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

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

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

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

    hxxp://wXw-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    hxxp://wXw.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

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

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

    hxxp://wXw.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

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

    In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by ParkingEye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from ParkingEye Ltd.
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 13th Nov 17, 2:24 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    Is this any good guys?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Nov 17, 4:34 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,742 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    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.
    I am the keeper throughout ......

    Your bulletpoint header #2 says this:
    2) The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace’ Periods
    Your appeal point #2 says this:
    2) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing
    Can’t see anything about Grace Periods.

    Just please confirm that you have used the wording from the templates from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3?

    I don’t see specific appeal points:

    1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    2. Why Beavis doesn't apply in your parking event
    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.
    • SKarTaZ
    • By SKarTaZ 9th Dec 17, 4:56 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SKarTaZ
    I have constructed it all out of the templates yes. I've fixed the points that you raised (I think). If you could give it another read over that would be massively appreciated (I have severe Dyslexia and ADHD so really struggle with this sort of thing):
    Dear POPLA,

    On the 03/10/2017, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”

    As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

    1) As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge.
    2) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing
    3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    1) As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge.

    To support this point further the following areas of dispute are raised:

    • The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons
    • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    • The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    • 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.

    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

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

    Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Tuesday 16th May. The relevant period is therefore the 14 day period from Tuesday 16th May 2017 to Monday 29th May 2017 inclusive. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the PCN is Tuesday 3rd October and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on Tuesday 3rd October 2017 (i.e. outside of the relevant period).

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

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

    The 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, 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 keeper throughout, 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 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 keeper is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the keeper 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 keeper. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

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

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

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

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

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

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

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

    hxxp://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

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

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

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The keeper 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:

    hxxp://wXw-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    hxxp://wXw.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

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

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

    hxxp://wXw.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

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

    In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by ParkingEye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from ParkingEye Ltd.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Dec 17, 6:15 PM
    • 4,784 Posts
    • 3,135 Thanks
    KeithP
    On 30 October you told us Parking Eye had rejected all four of your appeals.

    Have a look again at the initial appeal rejection letter and find the time limit within which you can appeal to PoPLA.
    Last edited by KeithP; 09-12-2017 at 7:11 PM.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Dec 17, 8:40 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,742 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I’m getting an uneasy feeling that the deadlines for the POPLA appeals have expired.

    @OP - what are the dates of each of PE’s rejection letters?
    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.
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

3,186Posts Today

5,574Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin