Do I stand a chance?

s100000

Hi couponmad sorry been really busy. No I cant as far as im aware, Il have to go back there but cant see the amount written clearly on the signs its very small.

I have rang popla and they said I can send the appeal by end of the week so in 2 days.

s100000

My appeal was successful! I would like to thank everyone for their input. Should I post the full decision here?

Ralph-y

yes here and on the POPLA Decisions thread ...

well done :j

oh and please ask every one you know to sign this petition

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925


Ralph:cool:

Fruitcake

s100000 wrote: »

My appeal was successful! I would like to thank everyone for their input. Should I post the full decision here?

Well done to you, and of course to everyone else who helped.

s100000

really thought I was going to get done over! Anyway heres the decision to anyone else who may be in a similar situation to me at this spot with this same company.

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameEmily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no waiting/no stopping zone.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she does not believe the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant does not believe that the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant feels the signage displayed on site is insufficient as it cannot be read in the dark. The appellant feels the operator has failed to comply with the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states the signage displayed on site was illegible on the date of the contravention due to a lack of natural daylight. The images captured on the PCN itself confirm that it was dark one the date of the contravention and the time listed on the PCN is 23:06. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site, however as the photographs were taken in daylight, I am not satisfied that this is a true representation of the conditions the appellant has described on the date of the contravention. Furthermore, within the evidence provided by the operator, there is no suggestion that the signage is directly or indirectly lit by lighting within the car park. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out that “signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. From the evidence that the operator has provided of the signage displayed on site, I am unable to determine whether the signage was conspicuous and legible to the appellant in the dark. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not need to consider them.

Redx

lol, we have harped on about signage issues for years and this just goes to show that a good legal point based on signage and the BPA CoP can sway popla (or a judge in some cases too)

there was even a recent win at the IAS over signage issues, so signage is much bigger in its ability to win cases than people give it credit for, which is especially true of airports as well as this non-airport case above

well done

Coupon-mad

Signage not lit or being illegible is always a nailed on one to include in any POPLA appeal. Well done! Never in doubt!