First Parking LLP - Lancaster University - need help with POPLA

Coupon-mad

It really is a Bermuda Triangle isn't it? A real black hole at the moment. Mysterious...

The silence from new POPLA re cases submitted since the Autumn is deafening. I think they are scratching their heads as to the legal issues and realising this is a bigger issue than they thought. Bet they were expecting a whole load of 'he said/she said' weak appeals from drivers, not considered submissions blowing the PPC scam apart, which will take their Assessors hours to understand because they are not used to reading through these arguments and finding the winning point!

Old POPLA wised up to it all within months. New POPLA will hopefully do the same and yet there's the Beavis case just to make it harder.

GrapeSoda

All right thanks for the advice guys, really appreciated! My signage argument does in fact mention the low height of the signs but I'll add the bit about it not being legible from where my car was parked.

Here's my updated signage argument then:

3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of the BPA code of practice. They were not clear and intelligible as required.

The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"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. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision". After inspecting the signs after the driver received the charge, I noted that the signs are grey and small text that is difficult to read. The signs were also unlit which makes them very difficult to read in the hours which the car park is free to park (6pm-8am), especially during winter. These were easily missed as they are on one end of the car park only, with low height which could easily be concealed by cars, and not by any lighting. Furthermore there is also no evidence as to whether a sign clearly showing the terms and charge was legible from the location of where the car was parked.

There were no signs or road markings to indicate that the area was private property or in any way restricted, and no signage indicating the area was private before entering the road.

The signage also indicates that the operator operates the car park on behalf of the owners . This not only discloses that the operator is acting as agent of the Principal to the contract but the fact that the Principal is disclosed prevents the operator, as agent, enforcing the contract in their own name. Any claim should be in the name of the landowner, the contracting party.
This is in stark contrast to the situation in Parking Eye v Beavis where Parking Eye were deemed Principal because the signage did not disclose the existence of a Principal, and only for that reason could Parking Eye bring a claim in their own name.

GrapeSoda

If everything is in order, I'll go ahead and submit this to POPLA.

Umkomaas

The silence from new POPLA re cases submitted since the Autumn is deafening. I think they are scratching their heads as to the legal issues and realising this is a bigger issue than they thought.

And each day more and more appeals pile in. I bet their premises are looking increasingly like a PO sorting office!

salmosalaris

Looks like the money spent by PE on Beavis may not have purchased the silver bullet then
Shame if so but one does wonder if the Haywards Heath pipeline has something further along

GrapeSoda

So I received an email two days ago on the 12th from POPLA notifying me they have received First Parking's case file and that they have sent me one independently. I have yet to receive anything from F1rst neither by email nor post and have contacted them about it but have not received a response. Any advice on what the best course of action would be? It said I have 7 days to respond to POPLA after their initial correspondence but I can't do that without the case file/ evidence pack from F1rst.

salmosalaris

1. Contact POPLA and tell them
2. Complain to BPA
aos@britishparking.co.uk

GrapeSoda

Hi everyone,

So I received the evidence pack from F1rst today and this is what it contained:

http://imgur.com/a/qGmxX

Any advice on how to proceed would be hugely appreciated.

Thanks

salmosalaris

Let's see the appeal you submitted

ManxRed

Is that all of the contract they have supplied? That isn't the full contract, it's just pages 1 and 2 and the last page. They've missed out all the terms and conditions.