querying PCN & Notice to Keeper

beamerguy

AJ16 wrote: »

The only fair way to charge for parking would appear to be ticket on entry and then pay on exit for the time elapsed. About time that parking was regulated, time to get a govt petition launched maybe if it hasn't already...
I see that POPLA is administered by The Ombudsman Service Ltd, I wonder how impartial and independent they are?

That has already happened
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

Click on "Read the response in full"

In a nutshell the Department for Communities and Local Government
are not doing their job and continue to allow the scam

AJ16

beamerguy wrote: »

That has already happened
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

Click on "Read the response in full"

In a nutshell the Department for Communities and Local Government
are not doing their job and continue to allow the scam

Time for another one then circulated by social media etc to get over 100,000!

beamerguy

AJ16 wrote: »

Time for another one then circulated by social media etc to get over 100,000!

I totally agree and this time headed

Department for Communities and Local Government fail to act on private parking companies. The private parking industry requires government regulation

AJ16

Hi All,
I have got an appeal drafted out now and would be very grateful if you would take a look. It's heavily copied and pasted after reading through all those POPLA appeal results, the bit I'm unsure on is the NTK as I think the one ECP sent may be compliant, I'm just not 100% sure.

It's quite long. Is it ok to post here?

Coupon-mad

the bit I'm unsure on is the NTK as I think the one ECP sent may be compliant, I'm just not 100% sure.

Can't be!

Yes, show the whole POPLA appeal even if it stretches across two posts.

And can you show us the PCN as well then, we'll take a look to make sure they haven't suddenly improved their wording.

AJ16

sorry, I've had computer problems, the draft is below, I know it needs reducing a bit. I'll go on Photobucket next to post the PCN..Vehicle registration number:
PCN reference:
POPLA appeal reference number
Issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd

I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks issued against vehicle registration xxxxxxxx. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:


1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
2) BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance (photo evidence).
3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
4) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge.




1) 1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA (2012).

As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The Act states that in order for the operator to transfer liability for the charge from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper, they must with the strict requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Euro Car Parks’ Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:

(i) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.

(ii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

(iii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

The NTK fails to include all of the above wording, as prescribed under the statute.

(iv) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(f), this NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to:

''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;''

(v) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(h), the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

(vi) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before iMail actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

Consequently, Euro Car Parks has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If Euro Car Parks should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

URLLINK|transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade|URLLINK

Understanding keeper liability
“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.”

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)— (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.''

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report:

''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Notice to keeper incorrectly addressed- does not give the initial of the registered keeper, simply Mr xxx and sent to an address where there are two people known as Mr xxx.


2) BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp on the photographs as they are required to do, nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).

The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the photographs. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate, this clearly breaches the Code of Practice, and
as they are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.



3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

As previously stated he Euro Car Parks ‘evidence’ is flawed as does not show a period of parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. To capture a vehicle entering Aytoun Street car park and actually crossing the boundary into the land in question, it would appear that the only conceivable location for a camera would be directly across the road from the entrance therefore outside the car park and taken from public land.

In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences, when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the rear number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; URLLINKbritishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work URLLINK

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Euro Car Parks to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that Euro Car Parks produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Euro Car Parks to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera, one of which was located outside the car park, took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to the contrary.

4) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst maneuvering into the car park from Aytoun Street and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligble.

The BPA Code of Practice states that- “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. “

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site, and the signage at the pay machines contains texts so small as to be unintelligible, furthermore I put Euro car Parks to strict proof otherwise, As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would seem them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore as stated (point #4) a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...the display of one or more notices which—

(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).
The burden falls to the party trying to claim money, to produce irrefutable evidence that all their signs showed less time 'allowed' than the timing shown in their own photographs. It is obvious that the previous signage said something entirely different and that time cannot be assumed, it must be proved by this operator when the signs changed.


A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. I question the fact that the driver saw any sign like that and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.



I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA), the BPA Code of Practice and case law (Beavis) undoubtedly supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.

AJ16

photos

1) PCN rear
http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp48/AJH162/PCN%20rear_1.jpg?t=1468274368

2) PCN http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp48/AJH162/PCN_1.jpg?t=1468274036

3) sign as appears on the NTK
http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp48/AJH162/sign%20on%20NTK.jpg?t=1468274036

Coupon-mad

OK, so regarding the appeal I think this bit needs removing because this was specific to an altered sign:

The burden falls to the party trying to claim money, to produce irrefutable evidence that all their signs showed less time 'allowed' than the timing shown in their own photographs. It is obvious that the previous signage said something entirely different and that time cannot be assumed, it must be proved by this operator when the signs changed.

And you need a section about 'BPA Grace Periods' (section 13 of the BPA CoP) which Redx already mentioned needs to be a feature of your appeal. It is a feature of this very recent Euro Car Parks POPLA appeal on pepipoo (see their point #4, in their post #61):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106466&st=60&start=60

Which reminds me, they also had an appeal point #8 saying that ''There was no contravention of the three terms which the sign states may give rise to an £85 charge''

So in your case you should have an extra point adapted from theirs with this heading (below) and an adapted version of the point copied from their version and tweaked to suit, because your sign also fails to create any relevant obligation or relevant contract to pay £100:

''There was no contravention of the two terms which the sign states may give rise to an £100 charge''


And I think the 'unclear signage' part in your draft is a bit too generic at the moment, need to be more specific. For example, if there are no white entrance signs with a blue BPA 'P' on, then they have breach the 'mandatory entrance signs' section of the CoP Appendix B. Or was there a White/Blue 'P' entrance sign? Have a look at Appendix B of the BPA CoP, on 'mandatory entrance signs' and consider, did ECP comply?

You should point out that the £100 sum is completely unreadable on the yellow sign shown in Euro Car Parks' letter (copy the yellow sign image only, into your word document at that point, then crop and stretch the image a bit, so it is there for the Assessor to see and so he/she doesn't have to go looking for another attachment). Point out that the £100 is in such extremely minuscule font that it seems to be at least FIVE TIMES smaller than the font used for the tariffs! Any reasonable driver looking at that sign, either inside or outside of their car, would conclude that the highest possible charge is £18. No driver could be held to have read about the £100, on the balance of probabilities.


P.S. I think leave the 'no keeper liability' section exactly as it is because ECP has mainly not complied in the ways you have stated. They do warn of keeper liability after the 28 day period but they miss all the rest, so leave it!

Nearly done...

AJ16

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, so regarding the appeal I think this bit needs removing because this was specific to an altered sign:


And you need a section about 'BPA Grace Periods' (section 13 of the BPA CoP) which Redx already mentioned needs to be a feature of your appeal. It is a feature of this very recent Euro Car Parks POPLA appeal on pepipoo (see their point #4, in their post #61):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106466&st=60&start=60

Which reminds me, they also had an appeal point #8 saying that ''There was no contravention of the three terms which the sign states may give rise to an £85 charge''

So in your case you should have an extra point adapted from theirs with this heading (below) and an adapted version of the point copied from their version and tweaked to suit, because your sign also fails to create any relevant obligation or relevant contract to pay £100:

''There was no contravention of the two terms which the sign states may give rise to an £100 charge''


And I think the 'unclear signage' part in your draft is a bit too generic at the moment, need to be more specific. For example, if there are no white entrance signs with a blue BPA 'P' on, then they have breach the 'mandatory entrance signs' section of the CoP Appendix B. Or was there a White/Blue 'P' entrance sign? Have a look at Appendix B of the BPA CoP, on 'mandatory entrance signs' and consider, did ECP comply?

You should point out that the £100 sum is completely unreadable on the yellow sign shown in Euro Car Parks' letter (copy the yellow sign image only, into your word document at that point, then crop and stretch the image a bit, so it is there for the Assessor to see and so he/she doesn't have to go looking for another attachment). Point out that the £100 is in such extremely minuscule font that it seems to be at least FIVE TIMES smaller than the font used for the tariffs! Any reasonable driver looking at that sign, either inside or outside of their car, would conclude that the highest possible charge is £18. No driver could be held to have read about the £100, on the balance of probabilities.


P.S. I think leave the 'no keeper liability' section exactly as it is because ECP has mainly not complied in the ways you have stated. They do warn of keeper liability after the 28 day period but they miss all the rest, so leave it!

Nearly done...

It looks like my reply 10mins ago might not have posted so apologies for any repetition and thanks once more!

Amended/additional points-

4) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst maneuvering into the car park from Aytoun Street and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligble.

The BPA Code of Practice states that- “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. “

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site, and the signage at the pay machines contains texts so small as to be unintelligible, furthermore I put Euro car Parks to strict proof otherwise, As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would seem them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore as stated (point #4) a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...the display of one or more notices which—

(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).


A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. I question the fact that the driver saw any sign like that and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

The £100 sum on the yellow sign shown in the Euro Car Park’s letter is completely unreadable. The £100 is in such a miniscule font that it seems to be at least 5X smaller than the font used for the tariffs. Any reasonable driver looking at that sign, either inside or outside of their car, would conclude that the highest possible charge is £18. No driver could be held to have read about the £100, on the balance of probabilities.
http://s396.photobucket.com/user/AJH162/media/car%20park%20sign%20image%20as%20sent%20by%20ECP_1.jpg.html?filters[user]=84882820&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0


5) The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:
13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow adriver who enters your car park but decides not to park,to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Also, under the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015, states that if drivers
"…decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract." (18.5).

In this instance the 18 minutes cannot be considered as overstay parking as no allowance has been given for the period between the two ANPR photograph images, ie. No grace period was given and the BPA Code of Conduct was accordingly breached.

And that when using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), "…your system must allow drivers who have not paid the fee to leave a site within a reasonable period that allows for the conditions and environment of that parking site. This grace period should be long enough to allow motorists to leave without having their vehicle registration mark processed for a parking charge." (30.2)

The above states that a time NO LESS than 20 minutes should be allowed for first, entry and consideration of the contract, and second, leaving the property. The times stated on the NTK show only the time of entry and exit (12:26 and 14:44 respectively). These do not indicate the time in which the vehicle parked. The charges laid out in the signage are only for the time that the vehicle was parked. The times stated on the NTK, however, are clear evidence that the vehicle entered the car park and left again within 3 minutes of the MINIMUM grace period specified by the BPA CoP to protect consumers in the time that they need to find a parking space, consider the contract, and leave the car park again.

In this case, the 18 minutes was used to find a parking space, consider the terms of the contract, and decline the offer. The mention of a minimum of 10 minutes is exactly this, a minimum. The time needed to complete all these actions are dependent on a number of wildly varying factors, including traffic, lighting and parking conditions, driver’s eyesight and driving ability and mental faculties. For this reason, a minimum amount is specified, but the maximum time allowed for these tasks to be completed are not. Further to this, the signage makes no indication of how long a driver may be on the site before a parking penalty will be charged. This leaves the driver uncertain to the terms of the contract, which means that there was no full acceptance of the contract to be breached.

''There was no contravention of the two terms which the sign states may give rise to an £100 charge''
There was no contravention of the three terms which the sign states may give rise to an £100 charge

The sign is ambiguous (it says 'may' not 'will' so creates no certainty) and it is altered with yellow tape, partially obliterating some sentences. The sign is incapable of creating any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' being the basic requirements leading to the possibility of 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the POFA.

The sign states 'failure to comply with THE FOLLOWING 'may' result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice'. The 'following' are three events:

- Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle (once purchased it was displayed and was valid for the whole time actually parked). NO CONTRAVENTION.
- Park only within marked bays (the driver did). NO CONTRAVENTION.

As this is a matter of contract law, ONLY the above two terms set the two 'relevant obligations'. The fact tariffs are listed higher up the sign is irrelevant because the sign as drafted, says the £100 'may'(?) arise only after failure to comply with one of those specific three events then listed below (not above). So the PCN was not properly issued because it tries to introduce another term, not set by signage, namely 'P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking'. In fact, it did, due to the two grace periods before and after the parking period, mentioned in this appeal. But even if the P&D ticket had not covered the time actually parked, it is a fact that none of the three obligations as drafted on the signs, were contravened.

The contract law doctrine of 'contra proferentem' applies and the interpretation of written terms which most favours the consumer must be taken to be the case. Therefore there was no contravention of one of the three terms on the sign that could give rise to £100 charge and no 'relevant obligation' was breached and no 'relevant contract' to pay £100 existed, contrary to the basis provisions of Schedule 4.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound. I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA), the BPA Code of Practice and case law (Beavis) undoubtedly supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.

Coupon-mad

'Miniscule' is a spelling error and should be 'minuscule' as in my version. It's a word I used to test my own kids on for spelling when they were younger, not that I am a Child Genius-style pushy parent of course!

And you need to remove the other bits here that say 'three events' and change them to two because your sign only has two possible actions that can give rise to a charge (I can see you changed some):

''There was no contravention of the two terms which the sign states may give rise to an £100 charge''
[STRIKE]There was no contravention of the three terms which the sign states may give rise to an £100 charge [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]The sign is ambiguous (it says 'may' not 'will' so creates no certainty) and it is altered with yellow tape, partially obliterating some sentences.[/STRIKE] The sign is incapable of creating any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' being the basic requirements leading to the possibility of 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the POFA.

The sign states 'failure to comply with THE FOLLOWING 'may' result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice'. The 'following' are [STRIKE]three[/STRIKE] two events:

- Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle (once purchased it was displayed and was valid for the whole time actually parked). NO CONTRAVENTION.
- Park only within marked bays (the driver did). NO CONTRAVENTION.

As this is a matter of contract law, ONLY the above two terms set the two 'relevant obligations'. The fact tariffs are listed higher up the sign is irrelevant because the sign as drafted, says the £100 'may'(?) arise only after failure to comply with one of those specific [STRIKE]three[/STRIKE] two events then listed below (not above). So the PCN was not properly issued because it tries to introduce another term, not set by signage, namely 'P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking'. In fact, it did, due to the two grace periods before and after the parking period, mentioned in this appeal. But even if the P&D ticket had not covered the time actually parked, it is a fact that [STRIKE]none[/STRIKE] neither of the [STRIKE]three[/STRIKE] two obligations as drafted on the signs, were contravened.

The contract law doctrine of 'contra proferentem' applies and the interpretation of written terms which most favours the consumer must be taken to be the case. Therefore there was no contravention of one of the [STRIKE]three[/STRIKE] two terms on the sign that could give rise to £100 charge and no 'relevant obligation' was breached and no 'relevant contract' to pay £100 existed, contrary to the basis provisions of Schedule 4.

Finally this confused me because I thought yours was an overstay of paid for time, not driving in then declining to stay?

In this case, the 18 minutes was used to find a parking space, consider the terms of the contract, and decline the offer.

In fact I would add that a few minutes loading was certainly 'reasonable' under the circumstances and explain this: ''In this case, the 18 minutes was used to find a parking space then pay the tariff at the start of parking time (which the driver reasonably believed started at the time on the P&D ticket itself) and then a few minutes before being able to drive out, as it took a while for the driver to load filming equipment back into his car after a student project.''