Hire company paid private PCN against their own terms and conditions (ARVAL again!)

Fruitcake

DJBenson wrote: »

Had to leave site (was starting to draw attention lol) so only have what's on my phone but did get this. Taken from the approach to the left.

I'm sure it would be possible to take pictures from the public highway showing that a driver would not see the entrance signs, making them incapable of forming a contract.

DJBenson

Fruitcake wrote: »

I'm sure it would be possible to take pictures from the public highway showing that a driver would not see the entrance signs, making them incapable of forming a contract.

Almost certainly. I might even have dashcam footage from my visit last week which would be good I would have thought (its 1080p and amazing quality).

Computersaysno

Fruitcake wrote: »

It would be useful for the OP to have that court case number.

The hireco settled before court date...but I'll see if I can locate it.

Fruitcake

DJBenson wrote: »

Almost certainly. I might even have dashcam footage from my visit last week which would be good I would have thought (its 1080p and amazing quality).

It would be most unfortunate to find a still picture with signs obscured by the rear view mirror, or door pillar, or sun visor. It might be the case that this would occur if the car park were unfortunately approached from one direction whereas the signs might be prominent if only they were approached from the other.
It would mean the parking company have failed to provide clear signage for all eventualities.

DJBenson

Dimensions of signs on site:

Main warning sign: 80cm (h) x 70cm (w) = 0.56m2 (1 of these)
Tariff board: 71cm (h) x 49cm (w) = 0.35m2 (7 of these)
Taxi warning: 71cm (h) x 49cm (w) = 0.35m2 (1 of these)

Total surface area = 3.36m2 or over ten times the legal limit if an aggregate is used.

So if it is per 'advertisement' they are over the allowable area of 0.3m2 in all counts. If it is an aggregate amount then, well they're frankly taking the proverbial.

ALL the signs were mounted over 9ft from the floor with the exception of one stuck to a wall to the right of the entrance to the car park (easily missed as it's driven past and the opposite end to the machines).

So on the face of it, I had a fairly strong case to have the invoice overturned at POPLA stage had ARVAL not intervened - thats nice.

I'll now wait for the response from the planning enforcement officer to confirm the car park he was talking about was this one (there are two, either side of the main road I photographed from) and the other does not list the owner (and looks council run) so I think it is council run - neither have any past or pending applications for any planning consent.

On the advertising consent, is that still managed via the local planning department?

EDIT: The tape measure also helped me confirm the size of the font used for the terms of the contract - it's 5mm tall which is 14 point. The material terms of the contract are in 14 point font on a pole 9 feet above the ground. I'd imagine someone who isn't 6ft4 might struggle unless they had perfect vision.

Ralph-y

my appols if this has been linked to before ....

Pranky post

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html

must now be of interest

good luck

Ralph:cool:

DJBenson

Fruitcake wrote: »

So we have proof that a judge would have ruled for the defendant if this case came to court. I'm sure that similar PoPLA appeals could be found where the PoPLA appeal had been in favour of the motorist.

We therefore have proof positive that if the motorist had not been prevented from appealing by ARVAL, they would have won their case. So, in addition to ARVAL never being liable for the charge so had no business paying it, the driver/keeper would not have been liable either.

This information should be sent to the BVRLA with copies to ARVAL.

Just fired off the following to the BVRLA copying in the 'fines' team at ARVAL and their CEO;

Dear <REMOVED>

Thank you for confirmation that you have received my complaint against ARVAL UK.

I write with further information that having spent a disproportionate amount of my own time this weekend trying to establish the basis on which the original parking invoice was issued, I believe I have conclusive evidence (including case law relating to the same private parking company, Civil Enforcement LTD) whereby the judge threw out the case when it reached court on the basis that a contract could not have been formed between the private parking company and the customer due to the wording included on the signs displayed at the private parking company's site. The terms of parking included in the case (http://nebula.wsimg.com/d8670de1426ea2c4f588c4cf1c9c1ff2?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) are identical to those on display at the car park which issued the private parking invoice towards the vehicle which I lease which ARVAL subsequently settled on my behalf (without my consent, contrary to your guidelines and best practice and whilst relying on 'implied' contract terms which when disputed err on the side of the consumer when deciding whether they are fair or not).

In brief, I put to all parties that had ARVAL UK not interfered in a matter between the lessee and the private parking company, I would almost certainly have been able to have the invoice overturned at the appeal stage. By subsequently settling the disputed invoice, ARVAL UK admitted liability on my behalf whilst paying no regard to the material facts surrounding the issuing of the invoice in the first place.

On seeking advice on the matter, it has also transpired that the timescales on the tickets (when the alleged parking event happened to the time the invoice was issued by the parking company) effectively meant that ARVAL UK could NEVER have been held liable as the company had a period of 14 days to issue the NTK (Notice to Keeper) which they failed to do therefor removing ANY liability from ARVAL UK as the registered keeper of the vehicle - ergo their argument for paying the invoice is completely without basis. Point one in my initial complaint to you is further strengthened as any liability ARVAL may have had was invalidated by the private parking company failing to issue the correct documentation in the correct timescales.

I look forward to a sensible end to this debacle.

Regards,

<REMOVED>

Coupon-mad

DJBenson wrote: »

The tape measure also helped me confirm the size of the font used for the terms of the contract - it's 5mm tall which is 14 point. The material terms of the contract are in 14 point font on a pole 9 feet above the ground. I'd imagine someone who isn't 6ft4 might struggle unless they had perfect vision.

See this post from April, with some useful links about visibility of signs, especially when placed high, and/or on a wall:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70517123#Comment_70517123

That poster won at POPLA appeal purely on their appeal point about unreadable signage terms.

DJBenson

I've now submitted a formal complaint to the local planning department as they have confirmed no planning permission has been granted and they have provided maps of the area which have enabled me to accurately detail the layout of the site including signage and ANPR installation.

Hi <REMOVED>

As discussed, please find attached a copy of the map previously supplied, annotated to show the locations and sizes of the ANPR equipment and signage to which this complaint relates.

The basis of my complaint is that I believe the land owner (whose details I do not possess) or the private parking company (Civil Enforcements LTD, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF) are operating the car park at 60 King Street, Whalley, BB7 9SN;

1) Contrary to the The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 which requires consent to display permanent advertising where the area of said advertising exceeds 0.3 square meters

2) Contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947

On point one, you will note from my evidence that all individual signs on display at the site are in excess of the 0.3m2 limit which means that consent is required. The guidelines are not clear to me whether consent is "per item" or an aggregate but in any case the operator is in breach as each individual sign is in excess of the permissible size.

On point two, you will note from my evidence that there is a pole mounted ANPR installation on the site which Ribble Valley Borough Council have confirmed in previous communications (and which I'd confirmed myself by checking the public records for planning in the area) that no such planning permission had been granted; neither for the ANPR camera installation nor the associated signage at the site.

I therefor put to you that the car park operation could be operating outside of the law as the operation is based around the ANPR system and associated signage to enforce the parking charges, neither of which appears to have planning consent.

I trust there is enough information contained within this email and the associated PDF to commence your investigation and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Regards,

<REMOVED>

No word from ARVAL, the BVRLA or the FOS yet.

Fruitcake

DJBenson wrote: »

I've now submitted a formal complaint to the local planning department as they have confirmed no planning permission has been granted and they have provided maps of the area which have enabled me to accurately detail the layout of the site including signage and ANPR installation.



No word from ARVAL, the BVRLA or the FOS yet.

You might want to let the local press know about this. The Daily Wail may also be interested as this feeds into their current CCJ campaign.
Someone gets an unfair PCN and ends up with an unfair CCJ, all from an illegal activity.