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
    • RiotLightbulb
    • By RiotLightbulb 14th Feb 18, 2:20 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 4Thanks
    RiotLightbulb
    PCN - Appeal Rejected. Couple Q's
    • #1
    • 14th Feb 18, 2:20 PM
    PCN - Appeal Rejected. Couple Q's 14th Feb 18 at 2:20 PM
    So i have been reading the newbies thread since receiving the PCN and following the advice.

    ParkingEye have rejected the appeal (of course) and i have a POPLA code.

    My question is; what exactly is my next step?

    Is this the time i contact ParkingEye again and request the "Better Particulars" as shown on the BMPA website?

    Should i even bother with the 'Better Particulars' stuff or not bother?I am under the impression that if they dont answer the questions in that that it helps your case.

    Or do i go straight to writing and submitting my appeal to POPLA?

    Also where do i stand on ParkingEye taking forever to respond to my appeal? They did send though an email stating they were 'reviewing this matter' but it took them over the 28 days that they said they would after i submitted the appeal on their website.
    It had been so long i was begining to think they were not going to pursue it.


    Thanks in advance. Sorry for yet another thread. You dedication to helping people is amazing.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Feb 18, 2:27 PM
    • 5,668 Posts
    • 4,374 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 14th Feb 18, 2:27 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Feb 18, 2:27 PM
    My question is; what exactly is my next step?

    Or do i go straight to writing and submitting my appeal to POPLA?
    Originally posted by RiotLightbulb
    Your next step is to compile a PoPLA appeal.

    There is comprehensive guidance on how to do that in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky/pinned thread.
    .
    • waamo
    • By waamo 14th Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 3,219 Thanks
    waamo
    • #3
    • 14th Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    Particulars of claim are something that comes along with court papers. You are a long, long way away from receiving court papers.
    This space for hire.
    • RiotLightbulb
    • By RiotLightbulb 14th Feb 18, 3:54 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    RiotLightbulb
    • #4
    • 14th Feb 18, 3:54 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Feb 18, 3:54 PM
    OK, so while looking to compile a POPLA appeal i found this thread

    //forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5763326&highlight=parkingeye+popl a#topofpage

    Where someone else is in a very similar position. However, Coupon-Mad Said that PE win most POPLA cases. So now it think that my best bet it to contact the land owners again and push for a cancel that way.

    But what is the best way to go about it?

    Firmly and angrily stating the recent comments from MPs or another approach?
    Last edited by RiotLightbulb; 14-02-2018 at 3:58 PM.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 14th Feb 18, 4:03 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 3,219 Thanks
    waamo
    • #5
    • 14th Feb 18, 4:03 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Feb 18, 4:03 PM
    If it was a shop or shopping centre showing you are a genuine customer often does the trick. If you can see a store manager face to face they often don't want the hassle so get it cancelled.

    There is no one size fits all with getting cancellations so you have to play it by ear.
    This space for hire.
    • RiotLightbulb
    • By RiotLightbulb 14th Feb 18, 4:30 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    RiotLightbulb
    • #6
    • 14th Feb 18, 4:30 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Feb 18, 4:30 PM
    The trouble i have is that it is Welcome Break and under the Successfull complaints thread it says to deal only with local managers, but i have emailed the local manager before and got what looked like a copy past response refusing to cancel it.

    Im now wondering if using the main website "contact us" is worth a try.

    Edit: Also all of those posts are so old now so not sure if still relevent to only talk to local managers.
    Last edited by RiotLightbulb; 14-02-2018 at 4:33 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Feb 18, 5:11 PM
    • 16,658 Posts
    • 26,045 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 14th Feb 18, 5:11 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Feb 18, 5:11 PM
    Personnel change, policies change, attitudes change. If you're not getting what you want locally, go to the top.
    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.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 14th Feb 18, 5:16 PM
    • 922 Posts
    • 1,140 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    • #8
    • 14th Feb 18, 5:16 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Feb 18, 5:16 PM
    OK, so while looking to compile a POPLA appeal i found this thread

    //forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5763326&highlight=parkingeye+popl a#topofpage

    Where someone else is in a very similar position. However, Coupon-Mad Said that PE win most POPLA cases. So now it think that my best bet it to contact the land owners again and push for a cancel that way.

    But what is the best way to go about it?

    Firmly and angrily stating the recent comments from MPs or another approach?
    Originally posted by RiotLightbulb


    where she say that? even PEs stats show more people do not pay tickets due to appeals/POPLa or landowner help than they win
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • RiotLightbulb
    • By RiotLightbulb 14th Feb 18, 5:36 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    RiotLightbulb
    • #9
    • 14th Feb 18, 5:36 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Feb 18, 5:36 PM
    where she say that? even PEs stats show more people do not pay tickets due to appeals/POPLa or landowner help than they win
    Originally posted by twhitehousescat
    Post #48 of the thread i 'linked' to (not allowed full links) quoted below:

    It is not a point at all sadly, if they've complied with the POFA they can pursue a keeper.

    Complain to your MP about this harassment, please, we are encouraging everyone to do so. The Government were hoodwinked in 2012 to allow 'keeper liability' to creep into the POFA 2012 & they should never have allowed it for private firms to hold a person liable for a contract they were never a party to.

    But before you submit any POPLA appeal, have you exhausted the possibility of landowner complaint, and I mean really 'exhausted'?

    PE are likely to win most POPLA cases, sadly, and will then sue you. But they WILL cancel if a landowner /retailer tells them to, but ONLY before expending time & money on contesting your POPLA appeal.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Feb 18, 5:37 PM
    • 34,521 Posts
    • 18,487 Thanks
    Quentin
    where she say that? even PEs stats show more people do not pay tickets due to appeals/POPLa or landowner help than they win
    Originally posted by twhitehousescat


    It's true regarding POPLA appeals getting rejected - but losing at POPLA is far from fatal!!
    • RiotLightbulb
    • By RiotLightbulb 14th Feb 18, 6:12 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    RiotLightbulb
    It's true regarding POPLA appeals getting rejected - but losing at POPLA is far from fatal!!
    Originally posted by Quentin
    So what are the options if a POPLA is unsuccessful? Go down the road of County Court?

    Im confused now as to what to do. I guess i approach Land owners again first.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Feb 18, 6:36 PM
    • 16,658 Posts
    • 26,045 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    So what are the options if a POPLA is unsuccessful? Go down the road of County Court?

    Im confused now as to what to do. I guess i approach Land owners again first.
    Originally posted by RiotLightbulb
    Just ignore it, there is no obligation on the appellant to pay in the event of a loss at POPLA. If the parking company want payment, they will have to instigate a small claim via the small claims court.
    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.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Feb 18, 8:02 PM
    • 34,521 Posts
    • 18,487 Thanks
    Quentin
    So what are the options if a POPLA is unsuccessful? Go down the road of County Court?
    Originally posted by RiotLightbulb
    This will sound like a stuck record.


    If you lose at popla is covered in the. Newbies FAQ thread (#4)

    You don't pay, but go into the debt collectors stage.

    You ignore everything you get except a lbcca or Court correspondence.

    If it comes to this then come back at that time for advice on how to defend this
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Feb 18, 11:30 PM
    • 54,026 Posts
    • 67,688 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Please show us your POPLA appeal draft. You have not said if this is a 'golden ticket'? Now you have read the NEWBIES thread post #3, you will have seen an example of one.
    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.

    • RiotLightbulb
    • By RiotLightbulb 15th Feb 18, 12:58 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    RiotLightbulb
    Please show us your POPLA appeal draft. You have not said if this is a 'golden ticket'? Now you have read the NEWBIES thread post #3, you will have seen an example of one.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I believe i am NOT a golden ticket holder. I asked about that on the original Golden Ticket thread.

    Thanks Coupon-mad i will post my draft here when done. I want to include a section that the signage was positioned poorly. The signs are positioned as the driver needs to change lanes and check their near-side blind spot. Would this be a valid argument for poor signage?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    • 54,026 Posts
    • 67,688 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you just add your words to the already deliberately long 'unclear signs' template.
    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.

    • RiotLightbulb
    • By RiotLightbulb 15th Feb 18, 4:40 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    RiotLightbulb
    So this is just the unclear signs first draft i have put together today.

    Using the template i have taken out what i believe not to be relelvent and entered in my own arguments for unclear signage. with hyperlinks removed so i can post (please let me know if the pictures work and support my argument)

    Im not sure if i need to remove more of the original template and/or try and extend my arguments further.

    Feedback appreciated.

    -----------------------

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, deliberately misleading, inappropriately positioned 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:

    //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.

    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). Here a Sign has no mention of a parking charge:

    //imgur. com/iEqJ26Z

    Signs are also deliberately misleading, by having the most prominent lettering marked 'Hotel Guests'. Drivers who read such signs who are not hotel guests will dismiss it as not being relevant to themselves:

    //imgur. com/XbGlbBi

    This case also points out the positioning of the Signs to be unsuitable to read while driving.
    Cars departing from the roundabout to enter the Services are in the right-hand lane. While taking a sharp bend to the left the driver is presented with route options by way of road markings and a manoeuvre must be made to select the correct lane to the car park.

    //imgur. com/vTpgQM7

    As any safe driver will know changing lanes requires use of mirrors, checking of blind spot, signalling, and manoeuvring.
    With the road bending around to the left sharply close observation is required in the drivers mirrors and blind spot to ensure no collision with other traffic. It is during this time that the entrance signs are displayed. I argue here that these signs have been deliberately placed when drivers are distracted with making the manoeuvre to increase the chances that the driver does not see the signs.

    Additionally the Parking sign is positioned to the right of the road as the road itself bends to the left. Drivers will be looking down the road ahead to the left and not to the right. Again suggesting that the signs are deliberately positioned out of a drivers natural viewing angle.

    I support this argument by evidence of the following straight piece of road that follows that could be used to display the parking notices but does not. The only signs along the straight piece of road informs drivers of heavy goods vehicles not to park in the main car park.

    //imgur. com/0ed00sn

    Before entering the car park the driver has to; Navigate a bend; Choose a lane; And be aware of the forthcoming hazards of entering a car park such as pedestrians and children walking out between cars. Again I argue that the signs have been positioned so as not to be seen the driver who is pre-occupied with the tasks above.
    Additionally the driver is making a turn to the right and looking right and the signs have been positioned to the left-hand side. As mentioned previously with signs being positioned on bends they have been purposely situated out of a drivers natural viewing angle as they navigate the road.

    //imgur. com/ZELT6lM

    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:

    org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    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!!!8221; 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!!!8221; or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    /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:

    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.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th Feb 18, 5:27 PM
    • 40,939 Posts
    • 81,719 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    So this is just the unclear signs first draft i have put together today.

    Using the template i have taken out what i believe not to be relelvent and entered in my own arguments for unclear signage. with hyperlinks removed so i can post (please let me know if the pictures work and support my argument)

    Im not sure if i need to remove more of the original template and/or try and extend my arguments further.

    Feedback appreciated.

    -----------------------

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, deliberately misleading, inappropriately positioned 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:

    1) //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.

    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). Here a Sign has no mention of a parking charge:

    2) //imgur. com/iEqJ26Z

    Signs are also deliberately misleading, by having the most prominent lettering marked 'Hotel Guests'. Drivers who read such signs who are not hotel guests will dismiss it as not being relevant to themselves:

    3) //imgur. com/XbGlbBi

    This case also points out the positioning of the Signs to be unsuitable to read while driving.
    Cars departing from the roundabout to enter the Services are in the right-hand lane. While taking a sharp bend to the left the driver is presented with route options by way of road markings and a manoeuvre must be made to select the correct lane to the car park.

    4) //imgur. com/vTpgQM7

    As any safe driver will know changing lanes requires use of mirrors, checking of blind spot, signalling, and manoeuvring.
    With the road bending around to the left sharply close observation is required in the drivers mirrors and blind spot to ensure no collision with other traffic. It is during this time that the entrance signs are displayed. I argue here that these signs have been deliberately placed when drivers are distracted with making the manoeuvre to increase the chances that the driver does not see the signs.

    Additionally the Parking sign is positioned to the right of the road as the road itself bends to the left. Drivers will be looking down the road ahead to the left and not to the right. Again suggesting that the signs are deliberately positioned out of a drivers natural viewing angle.

    I support this argument by evidence of the following straight piece of road that follows that could be used to display the parking notices but does not. The only signs along the straight piece of road informs drivers of heavy goods vehicles not to park in the main car park.

    5) //imgur. com/0ed00sn

    Before entering the car park the driver has to; Navigate a bend; Choose a lane; And be aware of the forthcoming hazards of entering a car park such as pedestrians and children walking out between cars. Again I argue that the signs have been positioned so as not to be seen the driver who is pre-occupied with the tasks above.
    Additionally the driver is making a turn to the right and looking right and the signs have been positioned to the left-hand side. As mentioned previously with signs being positioned on bends they have been purposely situated out of a drivers natural viewing angle as they navigate the road.

    6) //imgur. com/ZELT6lM

    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:

    org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    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!!!8221; 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!!!8221; or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    /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:

    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.
    Originally posted by RiotLightbulb
    Your pictures produced in the order you posted, which I've numbered to make it easier for other to reference.

    1) http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    2) http://imgur.com/iEqJ26Z

    3) http://imgur.com/XbGlbBi

    4) http://imgur.com/vTpgQM7

    5) http://imgur.com/0ed00sn

    6) http://imgur.com/ZELT6lM
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 15-02-2018 at 5:36 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 15th Feb 18, 5:40 PM
    • 40,939 Posts
    • 81,719 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Image 2) is not saved by Beavis. The £100 charge for failure to comply, if it's there, is buried in tiny font and unreadable.
    I can't see, but does it say what the ANPR data will be used for? It's another failure if it doesn't.
    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 15th Feb 18, 5:42 PM
    • 40,939 Posts
    • 81,719 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Image 3) does not apply to non-hotel guests. The Ts and Cs are in tiny font, if they are there at all, and unreadable to a passing driver who would therefore not know what the £100 charge is for.
    Similar comment to above concerning the use of ANPR camera data.
    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
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

1,292Posts Today

8,156Users online

Martin's Twitter