G24 Appeal for Company Car Driver

Fake_Shemp

I've created a draft POPLA appeal, which is posted below. Please let me know if there's anything you think needs editing or adding to my appeal.

I revisited the site this week to study G24's signage, and was amazed to find no signs whatsover at the entrance to the car park. Of the few signs I found, none of them were visible from the parking space I used on the day, and all the signs were high up on posts making them difficult to read.

I'm hoping to include pictures with my appeal, demonstrating the lack of signage.

---

I am the keeper of this vehicle and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from G24 Ltd. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) Inadequate signage so there was no valid contract formed between G24 Ltd and the driver
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms


1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

This Charge is not a contractually agreed sum. It is a disguised breach and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

a) This Charge is not a contractually agreed sum – it is a disguised breach;

If this charge was a contractually agreed fee the sign would have been worded to offer various durations of parking at various costs. In addition a payment mechanism would have been provided on-site and a VAT invoice supplied. This is not the case here.

This is a free (for 3 hours) car park and there is no mechanism to pay for additional parking. The signage indicates that parking for over 3 hours attracts a £100 charge and, as no limits are specified, this could equally apply for an eternity.

Despite what the sign attempts to say, it is not an offer to park for a fee and it is clear that the true and predominant purpose of the alleged 'parking operation' at *************** is to deter breach and, in the absence of evidence that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it is an unrecoverable penalty.

In a recent ruling at Luton Crown Court 2014 (Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty) the judge ruled that sum quoted on the sign was not a genuine offer to park at that price, but its main purpose was to deter. It was, therefore, a penalty dressed up as a contractual term, and not recoverable.

It would normally be for the owner to claim for loss which is nothing as there are no fees for using this car park and there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged). It is unfair to attempt to make a party pay excessively for an event that would normally be 'breach of contract'.

I require G24 Ltd to provide a VAT invoice, details of the daily rates of parking and proof that the chargeable regime at this location is registered for business rates.

b) This Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss;

If the sum is sought as damages for breach of contract then under established contract law it must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the breach.

The car park is free and there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged). I submit that on a free car park there can be no loss arising from any alleged overstay.

G24 Ltd cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. When there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver’s alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. G24 Ltd would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

The demand for £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it fails to meet the standards set out in the BPA’s Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.

Further still, The Department of Transport’s ‘Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges’ publication states under Chapter 16. Frequently Asked Questions, “Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.”

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

G24's appeal rejection e-mail clearly states that the charge is actually in respect of a breach of contract terms, hence their charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The appellant requires G24 Ltd to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the £100 charge was calculated, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.


2) Inadequate signage so there was no valid contract formed between G24 Ltd and the driver

G24's appeal rejection e-mail claims that "There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions", which is simply untrue. I visited the site on 16th July 2014 to view the signage, and discovered there are no signs WHATSOEVER at the entrance to the car park (see attached pictures), and none of G24's signs were visible from the parking bay used when the alleged breach of contract occurred (pic also attached). The few signs I did find on 16th July were placed high up on posts, way above head height, making it difficult to read the smaller text. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice 2014 states that “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead”.

The BPA Code of Practice February 2014 also clearly states that "Specific parking terms signage must tell drivers what their terms and conditions are, including their 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 and 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". G24 Ltd failed to supply a signage site map when requested as part of the appeal.

There was no contract between the driver and G24 Ltd. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park or when parking the car, and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. Even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.


3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

I believe that G24 Ltd has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, G24 Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that G24 Ltd merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore put G24 to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unreacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between G24 Ltd and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

G24 Ltd are obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that G24 Ltd have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. If there was such a sign at all then it was not prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
In addition, the BPA Code Of Practice contains the following:
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

G24 Ltd fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As G24 place no signs on arrival and other signs too high to see when driving, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that G24 Ltd present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require G24 Ltd to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image and a time stamp was added after the fact. There is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put G24 Ltd to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised.


5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms

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

A sign of terms placed too high to read, is far from 'transparent'.

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

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

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs placed too high in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Dee140157

You have done a good job based on my advice. Unfortunately I sent you to the wrong template

I don't think it's needed Dee, G24 aren't that clever and they just use a breach of contract/loss model. They just happen to call their ticket a 'Contractual Parking Charge Notice' to make it sound like one

So I would alter the first chunk about GPEOL awaking out the contractual charge bit and put a G24 version of this one in
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4995312

Apologies for sending you down the wrong road. Otherwise it looks very good.

Also do include the signage photos as they sound really good. So much so I would be tempted to put the signage point first, just to rattle this clearly under their nose. You will win on no GPEOL, but you never know, an assessor may be bored and decide to read the signage bit of the appeal for once!

Fake_Shemp

Dee140157 wrote: »

You have done a good job based on my advice. Unfortunately I sent you to the wrong template


So I would alter the first chunk about GPEOL awaking out the contractual charge bit and put a G24 version of this one in

Apologies for sending you down the wrong road. Otherwise it looks very good.

No problem, I appreciate your help.

Would it be OK to delete part 1a and keep part 1b as my GPEOL appeal? Otherwise I'll look for another GPEOL template because the other appeal you linked to is a specific example concerning a pay-and-display, whereas mine was a free car park so it doesn't seem relevant to my case.

Also do include the signage photos as they sound really good. So much so I would be tempted to put the signage point first, just to rattle this clearly under their nose. You will win on no GPEOL, but you never know, an assessor may be bored and decide to read the signage bit of the appeal for once!

I will certainly include photos with my appeal, if they can be uploaded with the POPLA web form. I'll also follow your recommendation and move the signage part of my appeal to point 1. I agree it would be interesting to know if appeals can succeed on anything other than GPEOL.

I was hoping to place a photo here showing a sign from the car park so you can see the wording, but as a 'newbie' I'm forbidden from posting links.

Dee140157

If you upload a picture to tinypic and then post the link without the http:// someone will complete the link for you.

I think taking part 1a) out will be enough.

Coupon-mad

Would it be OK to delete part 1a and keep part 1b as my GPEOL appeal?

Yes that would be fine.

Fake_Shemp

Thanks again for your replies and advice.

Here's a link to a picture I took showing the wording of G24's sign:

tinypic.com/r/2mw8214/8

All other pics of the car park signage (or lack of it) will be attached to my POPLA appeal.

Unless there's anything else in particular you think I should mention, this will be the final draft of my POPLA appeal:

---

I am the keeper of this vehicle and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from G24 Ltd. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:


1) Inadequate signage so there was no valid contract formed between G24 Ltd and the driver
2) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms


1) Inadequate signage so there was no valid contract formed between G24 Ltd and the driver

G24's appeal rejection e-mail claims that "There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions", which is simply untrue. I visited the site on 16th July 2014 to view the signage, and discovered there are no signs WHATSOEVER at the entrance to the car park (see attached pictures), and none of G24's signs were visible from the parking bay used when the alleged breach of contract occurred (pic also attached). The few signs I did find on 16th July were placed high up on posts, way above head height, making it difficult to read the smaller text. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice 2014 states that “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead”.

The BPA Code of Practice February 2014 also clearly states that "Specific parking terms signage must tell drivers what their terms and conditions are, including their 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 and 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". G24 Ltd failed to supply a signage site map when requested as part of the appeal.

There was no contract between the driver and G24 Ltd. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park or when parking the car, and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. Even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

2) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

If the sum is sought as damages for breach of contract then under established contract law it must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the breach.

The car park is free and there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged). I submit that on a free car park there can be no loss arising from any alleged overstay.

G24 Ltd cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. When there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver’s alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. G24 Ltd would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

The demand for £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it fails to meet the standards set out in the BPA’s Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.

Further still, The Department of Transport’s ‘Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges’ publication states under Chapter 16. Frequently Asked Questions, “Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.”

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

G24's appeal rejection e-mail clearly states that the charge is actually in respect of a breach of contract terms, hence their charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The appellant requires G24 Ltd to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the £100 charge was calculated, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.


3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

I believe that G24 Ltd has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, G24 Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that G24 Ltd merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore put G24 to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unreacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between G24 Ltd and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

G24 Ltd are obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that G24 Ltd have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. If there was such a sign at all then it was not prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
In addition, the BPA Code Of Practice contains the following:
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

G24 Ltd fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As G24 place no signs on arrival and other signs too high to see when driving, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that G24 Ltd present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require G24 Ltd to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image and a time stamp was added after the fact. There is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put G24 Ltd to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised.


5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms

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

A sign of terms placed too high to read, is far from 'transparent'.

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

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

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs placed too high in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Dee140157

[url]Http://tinypic.com/r/2mw8214/8[/url]

Another sign that gives you terms and conditions for something you aren't allowed to do! And a a tempt to make it a contractual charge without using the word contractual (hence words on PCN). Makes me wonder if the original appeal was right. Sorry to muddy waters again. Let C-M give definitive decision here.

But you will win nonetheless as the sign is nonsense.

Apparently you can park there as often as you like in someone else's car if you are a mean person as you are agreeing that the cars owner can be issued with a PCN and that as driver you don't have to worry . (Or so it seems to me!)

Coupon-mad

I can't see the link when at work but we know G24 use a 'breach of contract' model so the above POPLA appeal is fine. The fact that a PPC bungs in the word 'contractual' does not make it a genuine 'offer to park any old how', in exchange for that PCN fee. In fact that can never be the case in a retail park because otherwise they'd be offering disabled bays to anyone for a fee which under the EA, clearly they cannot.

You cannot contract to be 'allowed' to get away with parking behaviours that which are disallowed. Not possible.

Dee140157

So go with second one then. That's good. I just wanted to check.