Premier Park- help with appeal

Cazilou

Thank you Fruitcake and Couponmad I will revise the grace periods bit. I must have an older version as I don't have the 13.4 on mine, not sure it can be used in this instance though as there was no permitted parking period for a grace period to be at the end of but at least its some kind of guideline of how long a period of grace should be.

Can you please state here:

- what 'date of issue' is on your NTK and

- what was the parking event date?

- and when was it received?

- and are the photos taken within the car park boundary or is it impossible to tell? Could the car be in fact just outside on the road, turning in?

- The date of issue on the NTK is 23/9/16
- Parking event date 16/09/16
- Recieved 29/09/16
- photos are just inside the boundaries of the car park from what I can see, its very dark so not clear.

Coupon-mad

Cazilou wrote: »

Thank you Fruitcake and Couponmad I will revise the grace periods bit. I must have an older version as I don't have the 13.4 on mine, not sure it can be used in this instance though as there was no permitted parking period for a grace period to be at the end of but at least its some kind of guideline of how long a period of grace should be.

I agree. You'll notice I didn't use 13.4 in the wording I suggested above.

The date of issue on the NTK is 23/9/16

Good, that's a Friday which adds TWO MORE days, so 33 days is the soonest that keeper liability could apply in your case. I will work on some wording to try to shove that in POPLA's face.

Cazilou

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree. You'll notice I didn't use 13.4 in the wording I suggested above.



Good, that's a Friday which adds TWO MORE days, so 33 days is the soonest that keeper liability could apply in your case. I will work on some wording to try to shove that in POPLA's face.

Thank you, with the periods of grace I am confusing myself, I know you have written add but am I adding the wording you suggested or editing what I already have? as it doesn't seem to flow. you said the judges ruling is in a separate document, do I save the bit you have written as a pdf and attach separately or am I putting that in word for word including all the bit in quotation marks and attaching the complete judges ruling transcript as a pdf?

Coupon-mad

I think you could replace your point #4 with the exact wording I wrote, unless I've missed anything. You should embed your photos of signs to illustrate point #4 within the word document, making the appeal look 'appealing' rather than a wall of words.

Don't expect the Assessor to look at lots of attachments, put the photos all directly into the appeal which is saved as a single PDF (the whole appeal once it is ready, which it is NOT yet!).

Except the Jopson Transcript (the whole judgment) which I suggest gets uploaded separately.

But like I said you appeal isn't ready yet as the NTK issue is not yet perfected. If you only got the POPLA code this month there is plenty of time as the code will work for 30+ days.

Bump your thread again in 24 hours and if no-one else has posted to suggest something (e.g. Edna Basher is good at this argument re these PCNs) I'll have a think about wording to make POPLA see 'within 29 days' is NOT compliant at all.

Cazilou

I got the POPLA code on the 31st October while I was away with work so a bit behind and not massive amounts of time, need it done by the weekend ideally as I only really have evenings to look at it during the week. I will give it a day or 2 and bump again to see if anyone has anything to add. Thanks for all your help

Cazilou

Does anybody else think they can help with the wording regarding the 28 days/29 days/31 days fiasco? I really need to get my appeal in by Sunday. Thanks

Edna_Basher

Here's some suggested wording to explain why Premier's NtK did not comply with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (f).

Statutory Timescales

The Notice to Keeper Issue Date is stated as Friday 23rd September 2016.

The date that the Notice to Keeper is deemed to have been given is therefore Tuesday 27th September 2016 (being the second working day after the day on which it was posted as specified under Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(6)).

The period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given therefore covers the period Wednesday 28th September – Tuesday 25th October 2016 inclusive.

In accordance with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (f), the first day on which the creditor may have the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper is therefore Wednesday 26th October 2016.

Premier Park’s Timescales

The Notice to Keeper Issue Date is stated as Friday 23rd September 2016.

The Notice to Keeper claims that if within 29 days, Premier Park has not received full payment or driver details it has the right, subject to POFA to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Even if the Notice to Keeper Issue Date is excluded, this 29 days period covers only the period Saturday 24th September – Saturday 22nd October 2016 inclusive.

Premier Park therefore claimed that it had the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper with effect from Sunday 23rd October 2016 i.e. a full 3 days earlier than was allowed under statute.

Premier Park’s non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA is a simple matter of fact and is not open to alternative interpretations or “judgement calls” by POPLA.


Although you would expect this to be clear enough for even the weakest POPLA assessor to understand, I'm sorry to say that you're still facing a game of "assessor roulette".

We have just had a POPLA assessment where the assessor was satisfied that PP had complied with POFA even though the case concerned a hire vehicle and PP's Notice to Hirer had been written in the form of a Notice to Driver and didn't even mention POFA.

POPLA's standards continue on a downward spiral - some assessors are simply not up to the job and it's clear that the POPLA management team is not up to the job either.

Cazilou

Thank you Edna Basher, this is very helpful.

I have amended all of the points above, could you please have another look and check if there is anything else I need to edit before sending. The more I read it and read the comments on here the less confident I am that this is going to be successful even though I know I am right in this.

Appeal against Premier Park Ltd. Parking Charge Notice 473053 received 29/09/16

POPLA code:
Vehicle Registration:

On the 29/09/2016, I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 23/09/2016 acting as a notice to the registered keeper (Appendix A). I appealed to Premier Park as the registered keeper and received an email denying my appeal dated 31/10/2016. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.
2. Inadequate and unclear signage
3. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park.
4. Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier Park’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.
• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the vehicle to which the notice relates. The vehicle registration is displayed, but no make, model, or colour is specified.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 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 (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) 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.

Premier Park insinuates that they do not know the name or address of the driver through their request to the keeper to part with that information. ”If you were not the driver we ask you to supply the full name and current serviceable postal address of the driver so that we may address this request to them.” This however, is not a statement of lack of knowledge regarding the name and service address of the driver. While Premier Park does ask the keeper to pay the unpaid charges and supply a name and address for the driver, they do not ask them to pass on the notice to the driver.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (f) The notice to keeper does not

"warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)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".

The Notice to Keeper Issue Date is stated as Friday 23rd September 2016. The date that the Notice to Keeper is deemed to have been given is therefore Tuesday 27th September 2016 (being the second working day after the day on which it was posted as specified under Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(6)).

The period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given therefore covers the period Wednesday 28th September – Tuesday 25th October 2016 inclusive. In accordance with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (f), the first day on which the creditor may have the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper is therefore Wednesday 26th October 2016.

The Notice to Keeper (Appendix A) claims that if within 29 days, Premier Park has not received full payment or driver details it has the right, subject to POFA to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper. Even if the Notice to Keeper Issue Date- given as Friday 23rd September- is excluded, this 29 days period covers only the period Saturday 24th September – Saturday 22nd October 2016 inclusive.

Premier Park therefore claimed that it had the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper with effect from Sunday 23rd October 2016 i.e. a full 3 days earlier than was allowed under statute. Premier Park’s non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA is a simple matter of fact and is not open to alternative interpretations or “judgement calls” by POPLA.

Consequently, Premier Park has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA may allow my appeal.

2. Inadequate and unclear signage
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) (18.2) states that "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." The entrance sign to this car park (Figure 1) clearly contravenes the requirement that "entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format."

Figure 1- Entrance sign

The BPA CoP (App. states that "ideally the AOS logo should be incorporated to indicate that the parking is managed under a Code of Practice." As this sign clearly shows the AOS logo it is expected that this sign should follow the guidelines set out in the Code of Practice.

The BPA CoP (App. clearly states the standard wording that should be used on entrance signs. The standard wording is classified in two groups shown below:

Group 1
Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes’/hour’s/hours’] free parking [for [business name] customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only
Permit holders only

Group 2
Charges apply [after this][after x minutes/hours]
Private land
Terms and conditions apply
See the notice [in the car park] for details

The BPA CoP states that "there must be at least one item from Group 1" and also states that "if one of the following standard wordings applies to your parking area you should use it. If not, you may alter the wording to fit the situation. Words in square brackets may be left out." The entrance sign to this car park (Figure 1) does not include any text from Group 1 or a variation thereof. As Premier Park have stated in their NTK this is a private car park for Vets 4 Pets customers, the text "Parking for [business name] customers only" clearly applies in this instance. The business name does not have to be included but I would expect "Parking for customers only" to be prominent on the sign. Had this information been included, the driver would more than likely have not entered the car park.
Figure 2- The entrance sign as viewed from a car on the road.

Furthermore, the BPA CoP (App. also states that "signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times." At the time of the alleged offence it is clearly dark, as shown in the pictures supplied on the NTK by Premier Park. As shown in Figure 2, the entrance sign is not illuminated "by direct lighting or by using the light from the car park" and is not "made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads" as suggested in the BPA CoP (App. . It would therefore have been very hard for the driver to have seen this sign, particularly as the BPA CoP (App. also states that "the sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead."
3. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park.

The sign at the entrance to this car park are small and only the 'welcome' and 'P' sign are visible from the road, especially at night when this ticket was issued (Figure 2).

Figure 3- The additional sign within the car park

The signs inside the car park (Figure 3) are also small and not legible in the dark from a driver's seat. At the point of being finally able to read the terms, the driver would need to be already inside the car park and standing under a sign (unlit) with the vehicle merely temporarily stopped - i.e. certainly not 'parked' as confirmed by the Senior Circuit Judge in the Appeal case in June 2016 of JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES case number: B9GF0A9E (Full transcript in Appendix

This case, being a higher level appeal, is persuasive on the lower courts (i.e. it supersedes other decisions) and it was held:

''20: Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of
the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following:
“To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a
suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to
stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed
for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with
some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a
puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams
would consist of lines of parked cars.''

21: I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had
been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period
(whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”.
Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge
stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''

So, in this case, the driver cannot possibly be fairly bound to be (somehow) already in breach of an alleged 'parking contract' that they didn't have knowledge even existed, having relied upon a visible 'P' and 'welcome' sign which - in the absence of other terms at the entrance - positively invites parking. Further, the business within this car park was closed at the time, so the driver would not have been able to register with the business to secure free parking in any event. They were unable to accept any contract and left as soon as they knew that.

On the balance of probabilities the actual time stopped to read the sign in the dark, then decide NOT to stay or be held by any 'contract' was a mere 3 or 4 minutes. This sort of 'immediate fine' entrapment is what the BPA mandatory 'Grace Periods' exist to avoid. The seven minutes (all told) including the time to drive in and out, is perfectly reasonable:

From the BPA CoP, version 6 2015.

13 Grace periods

13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver 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.


4. That Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.

I do not believe that Premier Park has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier Park must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 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 contend that Premier Park merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require Premier Park to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits Premier Park to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

In summary:

• Premier Park has not fulfilled the keeper liability requirements as laid down in the POFA, and therefore keeper liability cannot be applied.
• As the registered keeper, I retain my legal right not to name the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach of contract.
• The signage at the site in which the offence was alleged to have taken place was inadequate and therefore the driver would not in any instance have been able to agree to a contract to then breach.
• A grace period does not seem to have been granted in this instance.
• There is doubt over Premier Park’s authority to issue tickets or pursue charges in the courts in their own name.

Coupon-mad

I would just lose the summary because it is not needed:

In summary:

• Premier Park has not fulfilled the keeper liability requirements as laid down in the POFA, and therefore keeper liability cannot be applied.
• As the registered keeper, I retain my legal right not to name the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach of contract.
• The signage at the site in which the offence was alleged to have taken place was inadequate and therefore the driver would not in any instance have been able to agree to a contract to then breach.
• A grace period does not seem to have been granted in this instance.
• There is doubt over Premier Park’s authority to issue tickets or pursue charges in the courts in their own name.

and lose this because it is weak and detracts from the other valid argument about the NTK:

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the vehicle to which the notice relates. The vehicle registration is displayed, but no make, model, or colour is specified.

In fact I would use Edna Basher's exact wording with his sub-headings:

'Statutory Timescales' and 'Premier Park’s Timescales'

And lastly, I would add the template appeal point from the NEWBIES thread post #3, that there is no evidence that the appellant keeper is the person liable for the charge (driver). That helps focus POPLA's view.

Cazilou

Thank you Couponmad. I have revised the bits you said and it now reads like this:

Appeal against Premier Park Ltd. Parking Charge Notice 473053 received 29/09/16

POPLA code:
Vehicle Registration:

On the 29/09/2016, I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 23/09/2016 acting as a notice to the registered keeper (Appendix A). I appealed to Premier Park as the registered keeper and received an email denying my appeal dated 31/10/2016. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. Inadequate and unclear signage
4. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park.
5. Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier Park’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.
• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 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 (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) 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.

Premier Park insinuates that they do not know the name or address of the driver through their request to the keeper to part with that information. ”If you were not the driver we ask you to supply the full name and current serviceable postal address of the driver so that we may address this request to them.” This however, is not a statement of lack of knowledge regarding the name and service address of the driver. While Premier Park does ask the keeper to pay the unpaid charges and supply a name and address for the driver, they do not ask them to pass on the notice to the driver.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (f) The notice to keeper does not

"warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)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".

Statutory Timescales
The Notice to Keeper Issue Date is stated as Friday 23rd September 2016.

The date that the Notice to Keeper is deemed to have been given is therefore Tuesday 27th September 2016 (being the second working day after the day on which it was posted as specified under Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(6)).

The period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given therefore covers the period Wednesday 28th September – Tuesday 25th October 2016 inclusive.

In accordance with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (f), the first day on which the creditor may have the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper is therefore Wednesday 26th October 2016.

Premier Park's Timescales
The Notice to Keeper (Appendix A) Issue Date is stated as Friday 23rd September 2016.

The Notice to Keeper claims that if within 29 days, Premier Park has not received full payment or driver details it has the right, subject to POFA to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Even if the Notice to Keeper Issue Date is excluded, this 29 days period covers only the period Saturday 24th September – Saturday 22nd October 2016 inclusive.

Premier Park therefore claimed that it had the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper with effect from Sunday 23rd October 2016 i.e. a full 3 days earlier than was allowed under statute. Premier Park’s non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA is a simple matter of fact and is not open to alternative interpretations or “judgement calls” by POPLA.

Consequently, Premier Park has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA may allow my appeal.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

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

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

3. Inadequate and unclear signage
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) (18.2) states that "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." The entrance sign to this car park (Figure 1) clearly contravenes the requirement that "entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format."

Figure 1- Entrance sign

The BPA CoP (App. states that "ideally the AOS logo should be incorporated to indicate that the parking is managed under a Code of Practice." As this sign clearly shows the AOS logo it is expected that this sign should follow the guidelines set out in the Code of Practice.

The BPA CoP (App. clearly states the standard wording that should be used on entrance signs. The standard wording is classified in two groups shown below:

Group 1
Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes’/hour’s/hours’] free parking [for [business name] customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only
Permit holders only

Group 2
Charges apply [after this][after x minutes/hours]
Private land
Terms and conditions apply
See the notice [in the car park] for details

The BPA CoP states that "there must be at least one item from Group 1" and also states that "if one of the following standard wordings applies to your parking area you should use it. If not, you may alter the wording to fit the situation. Words in square brackets may be left out." The entrance sign to this car park (Figure 1) does not include any text from Group 1 or a variation thereof. As Premier Park have stated in their NTK this is a private car park for Vets 4 Pets customers, the text "Parking for [business name] customers only" clearly applies in this instance. The business name does not have to be included but I would expect "Parking for customers only" to be prominent on the sign. Had this information been included, the driver would more than likely have not entered the car park.
Figure 2- The entrance sign as viewed from a car on the road.

Furthermore, the BPA CoP (App. also states that "signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times." At the time of the alleged offence it is clearly dark, as shown in the pictures supplied on the NTK by Premier Park. As shown in Figure 2, the entrance sign is not illuminated "by direct lighting or by using the light from the car park" and is not "made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads" as suggested in the BPA CoP (App. . It would therefore have been very hard for the driver to have seen this sign, particularly as the BPA CoP (App. also states that "the sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead."
4. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park.

The sign at the entrance to this car park are small and only the 'welcome' and 'P' sign are visible from the road, especially at night when this ticket was issued (Figure 2).
Figure 3- The additional sign within the car park

The signs inside the car park (Figure 3) are also small and not legible in the dark from a driver's seat. At the point of being finally able to read the terms, the driver would need to be already inside the car park and standing under a sign (unlit) with the vehicle merely temporarily stopped - i.e. certainly not 'parked' as confirmed by the Senior Circuit Judge in the Appeal case in June 2016 of JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES case number: B9GF0A9E (Full transcript in Appendix

This case, being a higher level appeal, is persuasive on the lower courts (i.e. it supersedes other decisions) and it was held:

''20: Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of
the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following:
“To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a
suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to
stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed
for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with
some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a
puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams
would consist of lines of parked cars.''

21: I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had
been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period
(whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”.
Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge
stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''

So, in this case, the driver cannot possibly be fairly bound to be (somehow) already in breach of an alleged 'parking contract' that they didn't have knowledge even existed, having relied upon a visible 'P' and 'welcome' sign which - in the absence of other terms at the entrance - positively invites parking. Further, the business within this car park was closed at the time, so the driver would not have been able to register with the business to secure free parking in any event. They were unable to accept any contract and left as soon as they knew that.

On the balance of probabilities the actual time stopped to read the sign in the dark, then decide NOT to stay or be held by any 'contract' was a mere 3 or 4 minutes. This sort of 'immediate fine' entrapment is what the BPA mandatory 'Grace Periods' exist to avoid. The seven minutes (all told) including the time to drive in and out, is perfectly reasonable:

From the BPA CoP, version 6 2015.

13 Grace periods

13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver 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.


5. That Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.

I do not believe that Premier Park has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier Park must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 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 contend that Premier Park merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require Premier Park to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits Premier Park to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

Am I now ready to send?