Not specified restrictions are in place 24 hours **Edit success**

nicole136

Hi
I have trawled through hours of threads but I can't see specific requirements about signage.
Driver stayed 2hrs and 42 minutes in a car park that stated 2 hours maximum but as it was in a retail park and the shops were shut as it was 8pm it was not clear that the restrictions applied. The signs were dotted about but it was dark and rainy.. There was flood lights but not signs light adequately IMO.

SHOULD THE SIGNS HAVE SPECIFIED THE RESTRICTIONS APPLIED 24 hours a day / 7 days a week?

Thanks Nicole

nicole136

Meant to say I got a NTK within 8 days

Coupon-mad

but I can't see specific requirements about signage.

Look at the Code of Practice (either an IPC firm or a BPA firm). Signs are covered there - easy to Google.

SHOULD THE SIGNS HAVE SPECIFIED THE RESTRICTIONS APPLIED 24 hours a day / 7 days a week?

No.


Which PPC is this?

nicole136

It's Highview IN BPA

Coupon-mad

Easy peasy to appeal and win at POPLA!

The addressed recipient of that letter uses the template in the NEWBIES thread and calls themselves the registered keeper. Nothing about who was driving, nothing added like 'I didn't see the signs...' (obviously not).

At POPLA stage you merely search this forum for 'Highview POPLA' (only read results from 2016!!) or go to the top thread 'POPLA Decisions' and find my posts there from September where I set out some template POPLA appeal points. You will be able to use at least four of them and you will win if you do so. No need to even alter them.

nicole136

Thanks Coupon Mad
I have read this and don't understand how I would win at POPLA if the signs we're correct. I feel I am going round in circles with my researching...
Do you post this advice (easy Peary) as you are familiar with the Highview paperwork and that it is sure to be incorrrect?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Do you post this advice (easy peasy) as you are familiar with the Highview paperwork and that it is sure to be incorrect?

Yes.

It's not about the signs, it is because Highview paperwork (that PCN) only holds a driver liable - read it! Do you see anything about the POFA 2012 and 'keeper is liable'?! Nope.

nicole136

No it does not meet that requirement but I was unsure if it was the next letter that would specify that?! So do I not need to write to offer reasons why the driver overstayed or signs? Just send your template below?
Date


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.



Yours faithfully,



Thanks for the clarification

Fruitcake

Please go back and re-read the NEWBIES thread.

All your answers are there, including the fact that mitigating circumstances won't work.

If the template you have quoted is from the NEWBIES thread, is marked to use for BPA members, and appeared in blue, then it is the correct one. If it was none of the above then it is the wrong one.

nicole136

Fruitcake wrote: »

Please go back and re-read the NEWBIES thread.
Yes I have again and again

All your answers are there, including the fact that mitigating circumstances won't work.

Ok thanks

If the template you have quoted is from the NEWBIES thread, is marked to use for BPA members, and appeared in blue, then it is the correct one. If it was none of the above then it is the wrong one.

Yes it is all of the above. But I'm confused as to why I should write about the signs when they are not being disputed?. So I was just looking for clarification before I posted this.
Thanks again for your advice

Fruitcake

nicole136 wrote: »

Yes it is all of the above. But I'm confused as to why I should write about the signs when they are not being disputed?. So I was just looking for clarification before I posted this.
Thanks again for your advice

You ARE disputing the signs. You said in your original post they are inadequate, "The signs were dotted about but it was dark and rainy.. There was flood lights but not signs light adequately IMO."

It is up to the PPC to prove they meet the BPA CoP requirements.

If you post a pic of the sign here we can show you why they fail.

You win on legal points, not what happened on the day.