Draft POPLA appeal, feedback appreciated.

Gemlou

Firstly, thank you to everyone who has been kind enough to offer support already and to those who have provided all the helpful info in the newbie thread. I have put together my draft appeal and would really appreciate your thoughts. I hope it's not too poor a first effort!

I have started a new thread as I had a few (silly) questions to ask initially so I could get my head round it all and thought it would save you all wading through them all to find the draft.

Thanks in advance.....

Gemlou

Dear POPLA Assesor,

Re ********* parking charge notice ********
POPLA ref **********

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds;

1) The alleged contravention did not occur
2) No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss
3) Contract with Landowner
4) Insufficient Signage


1) On the date in question the vehicle was parked without a permit with the permission of the Operator with an authorisation code supplied by themselves displayed on the windscreen. Their rejection of my appeal claims that no such code was displayed yet the photograph they sent as evidence clearly shows a piece of paper displayed on the windscreen which they have chosen to photograph from an angle that does not allow you to read the code that was written on it.

2) The Operator has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre estimate of loss by stating that this is a contractually agreed fee on their signage. However on both the parking charge notice (which is described as exactly that, NOT an invoice for an agreed fee) and the rejection letter to my appeal they state that I was "in contravention" of and "have breached" the terms and conditions of parking. In addition, the wording on their sign also states that "unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice". The charge must be either for damages or a fee paid for parking (consideration) it cannot be for both and in order for it to be consideration, it would have to mean that the driver was given permission to park provided they paid a fee but clearly permission to "park in breach" cannot be granted and I therefore submit that it is clear that the amount sought is for those who are parked in breach and that the amount represents liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

I would like to highlight a similar appeal against CPM where POPLA assessor Marina Kapour found that "The charge must either be for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or for consideration - the price paid for the parking as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park beyond the permitted stay. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park beyond the maximum stay provided he or she pay the charge. Clearly, permission to park 'in breach' is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine pre estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach. I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to park in return for the parking charge and so it cannot be consideration".

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd that ''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”. This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonable moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter parking for longer than the time paid for. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified". In this case, the sole purpose of the charge is to deter unauthorised parking as per the wording on their signage and so the same must apply and this charge cannot be commercially justified.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. The BPA code of practise also states that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss and that if your parking charge is based on a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case the vehicle was parked a FREE residents communal parking area and so no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner. The operator will no doubt state that loss was incurred as a result of the appeals process after the parking charge notice was issued but in order for this to represent genuine pre estimate of loss, they must first show that they incurred a loss as a direct result of the alleged breach. Where initial loss is directly caused by the alleged breach, this loss would be obvious i.e an amount which should have been paid into a machine. This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the breach. I therefore require the Operator to submit a full breakdown of their genuine pre estimate of loss as to how this loss was calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach. I would also refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, where it states that parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the Landowner during the time the Motorist is parked there and remind them that the amount in this case is nothing.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v New Garage Motor co (1915), Lord Dunedin stated that a stipulation "will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and "there is an assumption that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage". As the charge in this case is the same whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes of for 24 hours and the charge is the same for any alleged contravention, it is clear that this is punitive and that no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

Operational business costs cannot possibly flow as a direct result of any breach as the operator would be in the same position whether or not any breaches occur. In another recently upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs which were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said "the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.

The same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar agreements are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable and can neither be commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

3) Contract with Landowner

The Operator does not own the land in question and have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

In order to comply with the BPA code of practise, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons;

a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practise to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provide a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency.

Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

I would remind the Operator of their obligation to provide the Appellant with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent with sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

ColliesCarer

Hi Gemlou,

It's getting there and the points you have included are pretty comprehensively covered. Your Contract with Landowner point is fine as it is but to make it a bit easier for the assessor to see at a glance the main points you are making, I would make the following suggestions

1/ Yes include a signage point

2/ leave the first point in but put it last and I suggest rewording it as follows in quote box

4) The alleged contravention did not occur.

A new permit had been purchased from the operator who had given their permission for the vehicle to be parked, whilst awaiting them to fulfill their responsibilities and supply the permit, by displaying in the windscreen an authorisation code provided by them. This verbal contract is relied on and supercedes any terms and conditions on the signage.

If CPM wish to rebut my challenge I put them to strict proof to the contrary of this assertion:
I assert that in the case of my vehicle having been parked at the location on the date in question, it was parked with the permission of the Operator as their requirement to display in the windscreen the authorisation code, they had supplied, was complied with, consequently no breach of the parking terms occurred.

If CPM are unable to rebut my challenge then I submit that my assertion that the contravention did not take place is upheld.

3/ split your No GPEOL point into two separate points - the first covering that it is not a true contractual fee and the second that it is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
A suggestion for that re-wording follows (I have kept almost all of your original wording - just re-jigged the order a little - but the second point could be shortened a little - let me know if you feel it is too long - and I or others can suggest what you could take out)

1) The Charge is not a contractual fee – it is a disguised breach

The Operator has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre estimate of loss by stating that this is a contractually agreed fee on their signage. However on both the parking charge notice (which is described as exactly that, NOT an invoice for an agreed fee) and the rejection letter to my appeal they state that the charge is for being "in contravention of" and having "breached" the terms and conditions of parking. In addition, the wording on their sign also states that "unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice".

The charge must be either for damages or a fee paid for parking (consideration) it cannot be for both and in order for it to be consideration, it would have to mean that permission to park without a permit was given providing a fee was paid. Clearly permission to "park in breach" cannot be granted and I therefore submit that it is clear that the amount sought is for parking in breach and that the amount represents liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

I would like to highlight a similar appeal against CPM where POPLA assessor Marina Kapour found that

"The charge must either be for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or for consideration - the price paid for the parking as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park beyond the permitted stay. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park beyond the maximum stay provided he or she pay the charge. Clearly, permission to park 'in breach' is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine pre estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach. I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to park in return for the parking charge and so it cannot be consideration".

I contend that the same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee but is a disguised breach and must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss to be enforceable.

2) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely “parking without displaying a valid permit” consequently I contend, and the BPA code of practise states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

On the day in question, a permit had been paid for, there was no damage nor obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged) and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v New Garage Motor co (1915), Lord Dunedin stated that a stipulation "will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and "there is an assumption that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

As the charge in this case is the same lump sum whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or for 24 hours and the same amount is charged for any alleged contravention, it is clear that this is punitive and that no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case, as stated earlier, no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner.

I therefore require the Operator to submit a full breakdown of their genuine pre estimate of loss to show how this loss was calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach.
Operational business costs cannot possibly flow as a direct result of any breach as the operator would be in the same position whether or not any breaches occur.

I would also refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, where it states that parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the Landowner during the time the Motorist is parked there and remind them that the amount in this case is nothing.

The operator will no doubt state that loss was incurred as a result of the appeals process after the parking charge notice was issued but in order for this to represent a genuine pre estimate of loss, they must first show that they incurred an initial loss as a direct result of the alleged breach.

This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the breach and as I have stated earlier - there was no initial loss.

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd that

"the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonable moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter parking for longer than the time paid for. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified".

In another recently upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs which were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said:

"the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant".

The same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can be neither be commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

Gemlou

Thank you so much, that does make it more concise. I don't think it makes it too long but I am happy to bow to anyone else's greater knowledge. I'll repost the draft as per your suggestions and get working on the signage point.

Just a quick question, should I refer to them as cpm throughout or as the operator or does it not really matter?

Gemlou

Dear POPLA Assesor,

Re ********* parking charge notice ********
POPLA ref **********

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds;

1) No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss
2) Contract with Landowner
3) Inadequate Signage
4) The alleged contravention did not occur

1) a) The Charge is not a contractual fee – it is a disguised breach

The Operator has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre estimate of loss by stating that this is a contractually agreed fee on their signage. However on both the parking charge notice (which is described as exactly that, NOT an invoice for an agreed fee) and the rejection letter to my appeal they state that the charge is for being "in contravention of" and having "breached" the terms and conditions of parking. In addition, the wording on their sign also states that "unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice".

The charge must be either for damages or a fee paid for parking (consideration) it cannot be for both and in order for it to be consideration, it would have to mean that permission to park without a permit was given providing a fee was paid. Clearly permission to "park in breach" cannot be granted and I therefore submit that it is clear that the amount sought is for parking in breach and that the amount represents liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

I would like to highlight a similar appeal against CPM where POPLA assessor Marina Kapour found that

"The charge must either be for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or for consideration - the price paid for the parking as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park beyond the permitted stay. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park beyond the maximum stay provided he or she pay the charge. Clearly, permission to park 'in breach' is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine pre estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach. I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to park in return for the parking charge and so it cannot be consideration".

I contend that the same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee but is a disguised breach and must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss to be enforceable.

b) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely “parking without displaying a valid permit” consequently I contend, and the BPA code of practise states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

On the day in question, a permit had been paid for, there was no damage nor obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged) and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v New Garage Motor co (1915), Lord Dunedin stated that a stipulation "will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and "there is an assumption that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

As the charge in this case is the same lump sum whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or for 24 hours and the same amount is charged for any alleged contravention, it is clear that this is punitive and that no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case, as stated earlier, no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner.

I therefore require the Operator to submit a full breakdown of their genuine pre estimate of loss to show how this loss was calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach.
Operational business costs cannot possibly flow as a direct result of any breach as the operator would be in the same position whether or not any breaches occur.

I would also refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, where it states that parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the Landowner during the time the Motorist is parked there and remind them that the amount in this case is nothing.

The operator will no doubt state that loss was incurred as a result of the appeals process after the parking charge notice was issued but in order for this to represent a genuine pre estimate of loss, they must first show that they incurred an initial loss as a direct result of the alleged breach.

This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the breach and as I have stated earlier - there was no initial loss.

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd that

"the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonable moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter parking for longer than the time paid for. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified".

In another recently upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs which were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said:

"the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant".

The same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can be neither be commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

2) Contract with Landowner

The Operator does not own the land in question and have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

In order to comply with the BPA code of practise, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons;

a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practise to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provide a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency.

Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

I would remind the Operator of their obligation to provide the Appellant with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent with sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

3) Inadequate Signage

(Writing now)

4) The alleged contravention did not occur.

A new permit had been purchased from the operator who had given their permission for the vehicle to be parked, whilst awaiting them to fulfill their responsibilities and supply the permit, by displaying in the windscreen an authorisation code provided by them. This verbal contract is relied on and supercedes any terms and conditions on the signage.

If CPM wish to rebut my challenge I put them to strict proof of the contrary of this assertion:
I assert that, on the date in question, the authorisation code supplied by the operator was displayed in the windscreen, consequently the vehicle was parked with the permission of the Operator and therefore no breach of the parking terms occurred.

If CPM are unable to rebut my challenge then I submit that my assertion that the contravention did not take place is upheld.

ColliesCarer

Gemlou wrote: »

.....Just a quick question, should I refer to them as cpm throughout or as the operator or does it not really matter?

Good point - apologies I did rather flip between them.

As the bulk of the appeal refers to them as the Operator, I would stick with that and edit any references to CPM

Gemlou

Will do. What do you think of this for the signage, I took photos because there used to be more signs which went missing/fell down a long time ago (which I reported to the management company last year) they visit every day so they must know and it's their responsibility to ensure adequate signage but they've never replaced them. Just don't trust them not to submit an old site map which shows signs that are now missing........



Aside from the fact covered previously that the signs displayed are ambiguous and contradictory, there is only 1 visible on entering the development which is placed approx 2m up a lamp post on the opposite side of the road as you drive in. The only other sign at the end of the road that the vehicle was parked is attached to a bollard approx 1m in height which is completely obscured should a car park in front of it. The BPA code of practise amended in February 2014 clearly states that "Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand".

I assert that being unable to read the detail on the sign visible on entry without stopping your vehicle and having only one sign located where the vehicle was left which may or may not be visible depending on which spaces are full at the time of parking breaches this code as one sign is not easy to read without impeding the flow of traffic behind you and the other is inconspicuous. Interestingly the photograph supplied at the rejection letter stage is not one that is located at the relevant end of the development nor is it one that would have been visible on the route taken. I therefore require that the Operator submit evidence of the "clear and prominent signage throughout the development" referred to in their rejection letter in the form of site maps and photographs clearly indicating the location and height of said signage at the time of the alleged breach. I have taken photographs myself today for the purpose of rebuttal should the need arise and would once again remind the Operator of the requirement to submit copies of any evidence to the Appellant allowing sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

Gemlou

Could someone let me know if the signage section is ok to add and if so I'll get it sent and let you know the outcome. Also, before I do, being as it is the same company and the same signage should I reference the case that lesnmandy just managed to successfully have reviewed?

Dee140157

Furthermore, there is only 1 visible on entering the development which is placed approx 2m up a lamp post on the opposite side of the road as you drive in. The only other sign at the end of the road that the vehicle was parked is attached to a bollard approx 1m in height. this sign is completely obscured should a car park in front of it. The BPA code of practice February 2014 clearly states that "Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand".

I assert that being unable to read the detail on the sign visible on entry without stopping your vehicle and having only one other sign located as described, which may or may not be visible depending on which spaces are occupied at the time of parking, breaches this code. One sign is not easy to read without impeding the flow of traffic behind you and the other is inconspicuous. The photograph supplied at the rejection letter stage is not one that is located at the relevant end of the development nor is it one that would have been visible on the route taken.

I therefore require that the Operator submit evidence of the "clear and prominent signage throughout the development" referred to in their rejection letter in the form of site maps and photographs clearly indicating the location and height of said signage at the time of the alleged breach.

I have taken photographs myself today for the purpose of rebuttal should the need arise and would once again remind the Operator of the requirement to submit copies of any evidence to the Appellant allowing sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

You write in very long sentences so I have tried to make it a little more consise. I have not taken any of the detail of the argument out though. This is just a linguistic thing.
The one spelling point I altered was Practice. You had used an s in it. Do check the whole document for that too.

Gemlou

Thank you, that does look better. The sentences look even longer pasted onto here! Reassured that you didn't need to change too much as well. What did you think about referencing the lesnmandy case? Do you think it's wise in case I get an assessor who is duped on the signage wording or were they just very unlucky?

Dee140157

I am not the expert on POPLA appeals, so I adjusted linguistically, but it looks good to me. I know nothing about the lesnmandy case, however if you write an extra paragraph, I can do the English!

At least this will not be the standard template, but written in someone's own words!