POPLA Decisions

Spartan_Saver

Redx wrote: »

must be PARKING EYE , as Private Eye is a magazine edited by Ian Hislop of HIGNFY fame

It is - apologies for the confusion

jimbojimster

Appealed on grounds that signs were not visible during hours of darkness. Thanks for all the useful advice found on this site. My second successful appeal in as many months.

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than the permitted free stay.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant’s case is that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible form all parking spaces, particularly during the hours of darkness and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I have not been able to confirm the driver of the vehicle from the evidence and admissions provided by the appellant. When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which states, The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than the permitted free stay. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 22:50 and exiting at 01:19, which is a total stay of two hours and 28 minutes. The appellant says the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible form all parking spaces, particularly during the hours of darkness and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. For this reason, I have to consider whether the operator has provided evidence to satisfy the requirements of section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states “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. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Section 18.2 stipulates that, “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.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.” There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. It is evident, due to the time present on the ANPR images of the appellant entering and exiting the car park, that the appellant did not enter or exit the car park in daylight hours. As the operator is issuing a parking charge on the basis that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, the burden of proof rests with the operator in showing that a contravention of the terms and conditions took place. The operator has failed to provide evidence of the signage present at the site in darkness, I therefore cannot evidence that the appellant was able to see or read the signage present at the site in question during the time they spent at the site. Therefore, overall I am not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I will not review these in further detail.

CitizenSteve

Me vs CEL
Lost.
DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameJessica Lawton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as authorised vehicles only.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage on site clearly states that the car park is for customer use only and he was a customer of the Anthology pub. The appellant says that he has spoken with the landlord/manager who stated there is a system for typing in number plates at the bar, which the appellant says he was not aware of. The appellant says that it was late and he does not recall seeing any signage instructing him on how to register his vehicle however the signage did indicate “Customer and visitor permit holder parking only”. The appellant on multiple occasions has referenced attached documents however there is nothing attached to the appellant’s appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that he was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering his liability as driver of the vehicle. When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which states, “Permit holders only… Anthology customers & visitors must register for a permit on a touch screen inside Anthology… If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as authorised vehicles only. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle, VO62 UFK, entering the site at 22:15 and exiting at 23:10, which is a total stay of 55 minutes. The appellant states that the signage at the location was not clear to show the terms and conditions. For this reason, I have to consider whether the operator has provided evidence to satisfy the requirements of section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states “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. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Section 18.2 stipulates that, “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.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.” The operator has provided copies of its signage and a site map. In view of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the signage present at the location is in line with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and is “conspicuous” and “legible” and written in “intelligible language”. By parking the vehicle on site, the motorist is agreeing to the terms and conditions of the site. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. The appellant, within his admissions, confirms seeing sight of signage that states, “Customer and visitor permit holder parking only”. If the appellant could see and read this signage it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, that he was able to see and read the other signage available on site that stats “Anthology customers & visitors must register for a permit on a touch screen inside Anthology”. The appellant says that no-one within the establishment advised him of the requirement to register his vehicle. The parking contract is formed based on the driver’s acceptance of the signage it is not a requirement of any third party staff members to advise a motorist of any terms of parking. In respect of any attachment that the appellant meant to provide, it is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure all documents provided to POPLA are in working order and attached correctly. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Coupon-mad

The appellant on multiple occasions has referenced attached documents however there is nothing attached to the appellant’s appeal.

You didn't upload & see 'saved' as little 'bin' icons, all your attachments?

We always suggest embedding images into the actual appeal document to illustrate it there and then like a storybook, and so you only have to upload one PDF.

The appellant has indicated that he was the driver on the date of the contravention.

And thereby lost the POPLA appeal that would have been won by a keeper. Sorry, I realise you know that, but it is a cautionary tale for newbies NOT to write their own appeal, blabbing all about who was driving!

Never mind, it's only CEL; they are easy enough to see off when they try a claim.

Here is your thread so people can see what you do next (win a defended court case in about 5 months time, I predict) and so that newbies can be reassured that people who lose at POPLA DO NOT have to pay!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5867045/civil-enforcement-ltd-number-plate-registration-system-not-used

No worries - just next time, never make the same mistake again as per your first appeal.

Castlebay

No contest from NCP

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxx

NCP Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely
POPLA Team

POPLA website says NCP has withdrawn the appeal as a gesture of goodwill.

Thank you very much to all the experts who answered my questions - much appreciated.

Original thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5868984/pcn-at-railway-station

charlyp2

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she left the car park within the allowed grace period as stated by the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice section 13. The appellant says that she made payment for parking at 12:38 and left at 14:45, which was within 10 minutes. As evidence, the appellant has provided a copy of the paid parking ticket, an image of the site from google maps and a copy of the BPA code of practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that she was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering her liability as driver of the vehicle. When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land.

The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case.

The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which states, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal.

The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. I am satisfied that the operators signage adheres to the requirements of Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which outlines the minimum requirements in relation to signage. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

These captured the vehicle, entering the site at 12:34 and exiting at 14:45, which is a total stay of two hours and 11 minutes. Upon review of the signage, the terms do not explicitly state that the parking time begins upon entry. As such, I must assume that the parking session begins upon payment, if this is done within a reasonable period.

The appellant says that she made payment at 12:38 after entry to the site. On review of the evidence, I accept this as fact. The appellant made payment at 12:38 for £2.00 against vehicle x that allowed parking until 14:38. The appellant says that as she left the site at 14:45 this is within the grace period set out by the BPA code of practice. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code Practice states: “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”.

As the signage on site does not dictate that parking starts at the point of entry and as the appellant did make payment within a reasonable time, I do not consider the operator issuing a PCN for a 7 minute overstay as reasonable. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

liniclin

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. They say that the signs are not illuminated and are illegible in the dark, unlit environment. They say that the signs have insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN itself. 2. The entrance sign forbids parking which offers no contract for a driver to accept. 3. They say that the signs in the car park are confusing, misleading and contradictory. They say that the PCN was issued based on invalid grounds. 4. The appellant says that they do not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site. 5. They say that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) 6. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing are in fact liable for the charge.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I note the appellant’s grounds of appeal in relation to this PCN. However, the operator has failed to provide any evidence for my consideration. Because of this, the operator has failed to prove that it issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant’s grounds of appeal do not require any further consideration.

trisontana

liniclin wrote: »

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. They say that the signs are not illuminated and are illegible in the dark, unlit environment. They say that the signs have insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN itself. 2. The entrance sign forbids parking which offers no contract for a driver to accept. 3. They say that the signs in the car park are confusing, misleading and contradictory. They say that the PCN was issued based on invalid grounds. 4. The appellant says that they do not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site. 5. They say that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) 6. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing are in fact liable for the charge.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I note the appellant’s grounds of appeal in relation to this PCN. However, the operator has failed to provide any evidence for my consideration. Because of this, the operator has failed to prove that it issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant’s grounds of appeal do not require any further consideration.

Parking company name please

niggle58

Smart Parking - ANPR - POPLA

I had already revealed myself as the driver in a previous letter so had to throw the book at them.

A WIN!

Thanks to all who helped - Coupon Mad, Keith P

A WIN!

Dear xxxxx xxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 8xxxxxxxxx.

Smart Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

ETxxxx/001

Company registration number: 4351294 VAT registration number: 798 3441 79


This was submitted with photographs:


My Appeal to POPL
#27 1st Sep 18, 3:18 PM
How about this?

Dear sirs,

I am writing to appeal the above invoice from Smart Parking who operate the car park at Goose Green in Altrincham.

Note:
1. Faulty new machines

Smart recently introduced new machines which were installed in the gym which have been playing up. Smart’s rejection of my first letter did not explain what their error was, and I request that Smart provide proof of the entry that they relied on at the time on which they base their rejection.

2. Frequent jamming

The machines frequently jam despite people trying to follow the instructions so I am not surprised that they created an error at the time or that such an error was transported to Smart’s back office systems.

3. These new machines did not exist before 2018.

The new machines were only been introduced in the last few months. As such there must be additional signage explaining the new regime. This is contrary to the BPA code of practice. Especially to patrons who have been members of the gym for a very long time.

4. Additional time is required.

Smart must allow additional time to patrons. It is widely known that queues have been known to form in front of the two machines in the gym lasting for upwards of 15 minutes as regular patrons struggle to interpret these illegible and unfathomable instructions.


5. Inadequate instructions

The new faulty machines cause endless queues inside the gym with the instructions on how to use them in tiny lettering stuck to the top of the machine.

Anyone who does not have 20/20 vision struggles to follow these instructions as they in such small type. The instructions themselves which are in place are completely inadequate and unfathomable and contrary the BPA code of practice on appropriate signage.

BPA COP 2015
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Once one has managed to find the instructions to work the machine the steps are endless. In fact in order to get a ticket one has to press a minimum of 9 different buttons in a minimum sequence of 13 button presses. This whole process is not intelligible. It is unnecessary and unreasonable. (see photograph of the machine)

Signage to introduce these new machines must be placed not only next to the machines themselves but in plain sign around the car park, clearly visible from every space and Smart's failure to do so is contrary to the BPA code of practice.

Once the little signage that is available has been missed there are no visible terms and conditions in the foyer at the gym, nothing at all. Only once you enter the gym itself is there a small sign stating what to do. It is perfectly possible to completely miss this tiny sign, with small writing altogether.

if Smart only show POPLA photos of the signs OUTSIDE, this will not be sufficient to disprove this appeal point.


6. No adequate signage

There was no adequate signage in the car park on the route from the car park up to gym level to explain that the car park had installed new machines and how to use them.

In addition, 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 and penalties.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
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 was keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

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

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

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

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition, the 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. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

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

...and the same chart is reproduced here:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''
So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

7. Specifically - Term & Conditions

Further to point 7 for a contract to be formed full terms and conditions of the offer must be visible at the point of entry to your car park. They are not. In fact, one must become something of a detective to find them at all.

I have since visited the car park and managed to find them on one far wall. In fact, it is perfectly possible to visit the car park without seeing any terms at all such is the poor signage in the car park itself. (See photograph)

The term s& conditions are in tiny type and in the dingy car park, it is just not possible to read them. Not unless you are an owl.

8. Time entering the car park is not enforceable.

since there is no clock on the wall at the entrance of the car park. The driver, therefore, has no idea what time he entered the car park. You can not rely on this time as the basis for sending a driver an invoice for parking as the driver has no way of knowing what time and exactly at what point he entered the car park.
9. There is no proof that the driver’s car entered the car park.

You have a photograph showing the car at the entrance to the car park and another one at the exit to the car park. Either of those photographs could be explained by the driver ‘picking up’ by reversing into the entrance of the car park in order to turn round. This evidence is at best circumstantial as you have no photograph or any evidence whatsoever that the car actually entered the car park.

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

As this operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case, I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

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

10.2 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.

10.3 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

beamerguy

Proof once again that Smart were scamming you

Smart Parking = another BPA member