Rented Flat, Own Space

TxxxFxxx

Many thanks.

Yes initially I drafted everything long and formal however I noticed that POPLA's website only allows 2,000 characters.

How did those long ones get through? Via emails or posts?

Coupon-mad

however I noticed that POPLA's website only allows 2,000 characters.

PDF attached under 'other' like the NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you. Do not try for one second to restrict your word-count to please POPLA.

TxxxFxxx

Really really appreciated the advise!

I have update the draft. now consists below 5 points
1. No notice to Keeper - no keeper liability
2. No standing or authority to pursue charges.
3. The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.
4. No contract agreed and No legitimate interest nor clear signs – Beavis case not relevant.
5. The NTD is non-compliant with POFA 2012, as the "period of parking" is not specified.

1. No notice to Keeper - no keeper liability

No “notice to keeper” received therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
The alleged infringement occurred on and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by . As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:
''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4: 6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

A NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. As UKPC have failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability.

Furthermore, no assumptions can be made by POPLA nor parking operators, that 'driver liability' is possible in this situation just because I appealed as registered keeper, as is my right, following a 'notice to driver'. Henry Gleenslade, the previous Lead Adjudicator stated that it is the keeper’s right not to name the driver, and of course still not be lawfully held liable, under Schedule 4.

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a valid NTK. Thus in this situation, UKPC have neither complied with, nor met the keeper liability requirements and thus there is no keeper liability.

Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, the POPLA Lead Adjudicator in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

I believe that this Operator 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, UKPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right.

The Operator has supplied no evidence to prove that it had authority to pursue charges on this land. The Operator has no proprietary interest in the land and had no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in its own name.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“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.''

I therefore put UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between the operator and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights which have been properly assigned to UKPC.

3. The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.

The notice on entrance is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. It also threatened to clamp and removed vehicle which is unlawful and clearly breaching Section 56 of POFA 2012. Therefore, from this entrance sign a driver must conclude that the signage on the entrance is out of date and not valid.

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to fully comply with the following on entrance signage:

18.2 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. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

18.3 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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

At the time of the contravention no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Unreadable signage in the car park high on the walls breaches British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice.

4. No contract agreed and No legitimate interest nor clear signs – Beavis case not relevant.

As regards the location of the car park, the interests of the operator, there is no comparison with the Beavis decision.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet, not for any operator and not for UKPC. That case depended upon clear, prominent and unambiguous signage and a specific and compelling commercial justification, giving rise to a rare exception to the penalty rule IN THAT CASE ONLY.

It may be useful to refer to but it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals.

The unusual contractual licence to park that was offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract which Moore-Bick LJ at the Court of Appeal remarked was 'entirely different' from anything considered by the courts before.

As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that in more complex contracts, an agent or landowner must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty. But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, so the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'.

I would remind POPLA that, at the end of September 2015, the outgoing POPLA Service Manager confirmed this (below) in writing, as the official POPLA policy regarding the requirement for proper application (or not, as the case may be) of the Beavis case by both parties. By definition, it is never the remit of POPLA to 'make the Beavis case' for an operator whose argument is weak or silent as regards any 'legitimate' basis for their charge:

''It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Yours sincerely
R Reeve
POPLA Administrative Team "

The point here is, the new POPLA Service cannot and must not make any wrong assumptions about keeper liability nor impose the Beavis case arbitrarily upon all cases. There must be no misunderstanding by operators or POPLA that the Beavis case or 'GPEOL' (which I am not arguing, in fact) automatically supersedes all other points of appeal about other parking charges in other car parks.

It certainly does not 'supersede' all other points, is not a silver bullet and each case must still turn on its own facts.

Much more was said in the ParkingEye v Beavis judgment than findings about 'GPEOL' as opposed to 'commercial justification' and it did not shoot down any other parking charges, by default. In actual fact, this binding case law supports a consumer appellant in other parking charge cases, not least regarding the requirement to display very clear prominent terms that can be read in the light conditions before parking.

The burden now shifts to this operator (not POPLA) to submit their argument to try to counter mine, that due to the facts of THIS charge in THIS car park with these signs, the Beavis case does not assist them at all.

5. The NTD is non-compliant with POFA 2012, as the "period of parking" is not specified, just the "date and time of event". The latter, being a single instant, does not give any information as to whether the driver was given enough time to consider the contract. As keeper I cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it requires permit then driven out after.

catfunt

Given the time lag from when the ticket was issued, have you checked to see if your POPLA code is still valid?

Check here: http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

Northlakes

Can you make each of the heading points in BOLD. You need to make each appeal headings clear and separate.

Heading 4: I think you have copied and pasted too much and put in posters comments which the assessor won't like at all.

Coupon-mad

The notice on entrance is not a 'sign'

Not sure what you mean here? It is a sign.

It also threatened to clamp and removed vehicle which is unlawful

Make sure you include a photo attached too.

Your signage point doesn't mention much more than a criticism of the 'entrance sign'. What about the other signs (the one shown in UKPC's webpage about your case is useful - USE IT). Better to add more to that point about the unreadable £100 in the small print on any other signs, creating no contract, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70759770#Comment_70759770

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70636374#Comment_70636374

And you need to show why the case differs from the Beavis case. This would need adapting as yours is not a Railway one called a 'penalty' but it is about permits and why the Beavis case is inapplicable:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70753927#Comment_70753927

HTH

TxxxFxxx

Hi guys, many thanks for all the advises, I have further update my appeal.

To whom it may concern:
I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from UK Parking Control LTD (UKPC).

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
• No notice to keeper- no keeper liability
• No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
• The signage was inadequate - no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.
• Beavis case not relevant.
• The NTD (notice to driver) is non-compliant with POFA 2012

1. No notice to Keeper - no keeper liability

No “notice to keeper” received therefore not compliant with POFA 2012. The alleged infringement occurred on xx/xx/2016 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by xx/xx/2016. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:
''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4: 6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

A NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. As UKPC have failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability.

Furthermore, no assumptions can be made by POPLA nor parking operators, that 'driver liability' is possible in this situation just because I appealed as registered keeper, as is my right, following a 'notice to driver'. Henry Gleenslade, the previous Lead Adjudicator stated that it is the keeper’s right not to name the driver, and of course still not be lawfully held liable, under Schedule 4.

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a valid NTK. Thus in this situation, UKPC have neither complied with, nor met the keeper liability requirements and thus there is no keeper liability.

Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, the POPLA Lead Adjudicator in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

I believe that this Operator 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, UKPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right.

The Operator has supplied no evidence to prove that it had authority to pursue charges on this land. The Operator has no proprietary interest in the land and had no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in its own name.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:
“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.''

I therefore put UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between the operator and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights which have been properly assigned to UKPC.

3. The signage was inadequate - no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.

The notice on entrance does not communicate full contractual terms & conditions. It also threatened to clamp and removed vehicle which is unlawful and clearly breaching Section 56 of POFA 2012. Therefore, from this entrance sign a driver must conclude that the signage on the entrance is out of date and not valid.

The only notices are up on walls, usually blocked by other vehicles. It is away from the light sources in the car park area. The image evidence provided by the UKPC even further confirms that the signage in the parking area is not readable and it is hidden far away behind another the vehicle. The signage put directly related to the parking space is only a “no smoking” sign.

The residential car park in which the parking bay is located is generally very dark and no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Any photos supplied by UKPC to POPLA will no doubt show the signage with the misleading aid of a close up camera with an extremely bright flash and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the UKPC signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this residential car park.

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to fully comply with the following on entrance signage:

18.2 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. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

18.3 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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

At the time of the contravention no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Unreadable signage in the car park high on the walls breaches British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice.
If a driver can't read the sum of the parking charge (the £100) before parking - because the font is too small/the sign unremarkable and too high to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it. Also, a keeper appellant cannot be bound by inadequate notice of the charge either (POFA Schedule 4 requires 'adequate notice' of the sum of the parking charge, not just vague illegible small print, however near the car).

The well-known and oft used 'Red Hand Rule' in the binding case of J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] applies, where Denning LJ stated: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient''. In Mendelson v Normand and Thornton v Shoe Lane which were both about parking, this was also clearly stated by Denning LJ:

‘The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue…was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling.’

i.e. even if a document or notice is ostensibly under the nose of a consumer, the onerous term needs to be VERY explicit and prominent. Not hidden among small print on a sign, regardless of whether that sign is in the vicinity of the car. This was reiterated by Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] where he held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way''. Small print on an illegible, unremarkable and pale sign on a wall is not enough.

No contract can have been formed between the driver and UKPC because the signage is inadequate, unlit and the “charge” is not clearly displayed in large lettering. The ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis is irrelevant in this case as the parking spaces are for the enjoyment of the residents, and are not offered as spaces for public parking. A vehicle parking in his own dedicated is not depriving any other resident of their allotted parking space. Parking Eye v Beavis is only relevant to a public car park with a high turnover of public vehicles.

4. Beavis case not relevant.

As regards the location of the car park, the interests of the operator, there is no comparison with the Beavis decision. The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing their charge, the charge is disproportionate, a penalty and an unenforceable Unfair Contract Term, and this case can easily be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis.

The Operator may seek to rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis as legitimising the charge in this case. The appellant will make the following observations as to why the material case can be easily distinguished from it. The Supreme Court adjudged that the charge in ParkingEye v Beavis could not be considered a penalty, despite the fact that UKPC made no loss, because they had a legitimate interest in enforcing that charge and that the charge was not disproportionate to that interest. The legitimate interest was described in the Supreme Court judgment as:

“97 a. The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants prospective customers;-
b. The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;-
c. The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential
number of such customers;-
d. The related need to prevent `misuse' of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants
business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to o -park premises; and
e. The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to them-selves.”

In that case the penalty rule had been engaged by the charge but was then disengaged for the above reasons.
In this case the appellant would submit that the penalty rule has similarly been engaged but in contrast it is not disengaged, the Operator has made no loss and the charge is a penalty. The vehicle was fully entitled to park as it did. The only alleged error is that temporarily on the material date a permit was not displayed (not that there is any obligation to). Had this been done it would have prevented a parking charge notice being issued.

The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing this charge, their only interest is to seek to profit from an inadvertent error. Their charge remains an unenforceable penalty as none of the legitimate interests pursued in Parking Eye v Beavis are present in this case. To quote the passage referred to in the Supreme Court judgment.

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.”

The Supreme Court made clear that their judgment related only to that particular car park and how it operated. In this situation it is impossible, without intellectual dishonesty, to believe that they would determine that this inadvertent error would justify such a disproportionate, extravagant and unconscionable charge when the vehicle was parked in its own allocated bay where it has every entitlement to. Careful analysis of the Supreme Court judgment is not, as the Operator may believe, a judicial green light legitimising all parking charges. It is indeed quite the reverse, and the onus is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest in enforcing their charge and that the charge is proportionate to that interest. In this case they do not and it is not.

In this case the imposition of a £100 charge for temporarily forgetting to display an unnecessary permit is quite obviously causing an imbalance of the parties’ rights to the detriment of the appellant contrary to the requirements of good faith. Had the Driver not overlooked displaying the permit then no such charge would have been issued.
It is difficult to imagine a more obvious Unfair Contract Term when all manner of reasons could cause such a momentary oversight. No reasonable person would agree to this charge and the charge is not achieving any objective whatsoever other than punishing an inadvertent error.

The sum of £100 is not communicated to drivers at all, let alone clearly and unambiguously, so it falls foul of the findings of the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye v Beavis, where the prominence of the £85 charge depicted on a simple sign in contrasting large lettering, was key. If a driver can't read the sum of the parking 'charge' (the £100 in this case) before parking - because the sign is wordy and unremarkable, the charge not prominent and the words too small to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet, not for any operator and not for UKPC. That case depended upon clear, prominent and unambiguous signage and a specific and compelling commercial justification, giving rise to a rare exception to the penalty rule IN THAT CASE ONLY. It may be useful to refer to but it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals.

I would remind POPLA that, at the end of September 2015, the outgoing POPLA Service Manager confirmed this (below) in writing, as the official POPLA policy regarding the requirement for proper application (or not, as the case may be) of the Beavis case by both parties. By definition, it is never the remit of POPLA to 'make the Beavis case' for an operator whose argument is weak or silent as regards any 'legitimate' basis for their charge:

''It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Yours sincerely
R Reeve
POPLA Administrative Team “

The point here is, the new POPLA Service cannot and must not make any wrong assumptions about keeper liability nor impose the Beavis case arbitrarily upon all cases. There must be no misunderstanding by operators or POPLA that the Beavis case or 'GPEOL' (which I am not arguing, in fact) automatically supersedes all other points of appeal about other parking charges in other car parks.

It certainly does not 'supersede' all other points, is not a silver bullet and each case must still turn on its own facts.

The burden now shifts to this operator (not POPLA) to submit their argument to try to counter mine, that due to the facts of THIS charge in THIS car park with these signs, the Beavis case does not assist them at all.

5. The NTD (notice to driver) is non-compliant with POFA 2012.
As the "period of parking" is not specified, just the "date and time of event". The latter, being a single instant, does not give any information as to whether the driver was given enough time to consider the contract. As keeper I cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it requires permit then driven out after.

This concludes my POPLA appeal
Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I would get rid of this as it helps their side, not yours, as it is so full of admissions of 'fault' by the driver:

In this case the imposition of a £100 charge for temporarily forgetting to display an unnecessary permit is quite obviously causing an imbalance of the parties’ rights to the detriment of the appellant contrary to the requirements of good faith. Had the Driver not overlooked displaying the permit then no such charge would have been issued.
It is difficult to imagine a more obvious Unfair Contract Term when all manner of reasons could cause such a momentary oversight. No reasonable person would agree to this charge and the charge is not achieving any objective whatsoever other than punishing an inadvertent error.

And - as well as attaching your PDF POPLA appeal under 'Other' - do also attach the signage photos proving how unreadable the terms are.

TxxxFxxx

I was just reviewing the photos and I realised they have altered the picture evidence.

There is a "no-smoking" sign behind my car. UKP C has alter (trying to pixelate) the no-smoking sign so it is un-readable. This makes the no-smoking sign directly behind the car may looks like their signage about the parking.
Here are the 2 photos provided on their website and zoom in you can see that the signage at back is altered and looks different. The pictures are taken at similar angle but different times.

hxxp://postimg.org/image/6jf5yb90h/
hxxp://postimg.org/image/oo0k1x081/

It is so vague that one have to look at it very carefully. But the fact is the "non-smoking" sign is in huge letters and will not appear only in "black shaded box", not to mention the 2 "black shaded boxes" taken at different times are in different shape.

I think I have a complaint to make beside the appeal now.

Northlakes

http://postimg.org/image/6jf5yb90h/

http://postimg.org/image/oo0k1x081/

You will also notice the UKPC sign and the pixelated sign are completely different sizes. The 'no smoking' pixelated sign is a 1/2 height of the concrete block and UKPC is a full block height (in a different location and unreadable).

Have you included 'real' photos in your appeal? Pictures say a 1000 words!