Parking Eye Fine

adp1

Just an update on this. ParkingLie turned down my appeal and have given me a POPLA code, which I'm going to log an appeal with.

As I mentioned before, a ticket for the correct time was purchased but Parking Eye have not given any evidence to say otherwise. There are some many different template letters for a POPLA appeal to contest my type of case that I'm not sure which one to use!

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks

Redx

try the POPLA DECISIONS thread, read the CM posts and templates and any relevant links to successful recent popla appeals (only from the last 6 months or so)

Umkomaas

adp1 wrote: »

Just an update on this. ParkingLie turned down my appeal and have given me a POPLA code, which I'm going to log an appeal with.

As I mentioned before, a ticket for the correct time was purchased but Parking Eye have not given any evidence to say otherwise. There are some many different template letters for a POPLA appeal to contest my type of case that I'm not sure which one to use!

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks

NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3. Let us see your draft before submission. PE are buckling under forum assisted POPLA appeals.

Here's one from today!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5530171

adp1

Hi all,

Here is my draft appeal letter to POPLA. I would appreciate any tips of feedback. Thanks.


POPLA Ref 6063286446
Parking Eye Parking PCN no 342260/062351

A notice to keeper was issued on 29th of October 2016 and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on 22nd of October 2016 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at Tower Road Newquay. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
1) Burden of proof
2) Amount demanded is a penalty
3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

1)A ticket was purchased in Tower Road car park and displayed on the car windscreen, which was purchased with enough time for the vehicle to be parked in the car park. Parking Eye have not provided me with any proof that the driver did not purchase a ticket to park, or if the ticket had expired.

2) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.


3) 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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

4) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking Eye lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Parking Eye to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Parking Eye is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Parking Eye to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking Eye to prove otherwise so I require that Parking Eye produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Eye and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Eye can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

adp1

Ok, I've changed my mind and decided to use this recent template, which is at the same car park and won recently. Thought?



I am the registered keeper and was a passenger in the car so I can give an honest account of this unfair charge; however I was not the driver at the time in question – the driver will not be named according to POFA 2012.

I have yet to receive any evidence that our car was present without a valid ticket, such as a photo. The points I would like to submit to show I am not liable for this charge are:

1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
As this was a Pay/Display car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN.
Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed. Schedue 4 paragraph 9 stipulates as mandatory that a PCN must.

“specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is - (I) specified in the notice; and (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is ...sent by post”


From the pcn I can only see that, that the car stayed fo a certain amount of time and that the contravention was 'either/or' an overstay or failure to pay. This does not give any clarity of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder what the hourly rate tariff even was and whether the driver paid nothing, or paid too little, or paid only for half an hour or an hour, or paid in full but put in the wrong car registration, or some other event.

This Operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect/record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able - and indeed are required under the POFA - to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued.

These are the omissions:
''9(2)The notice must—
(b)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;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay then arose including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid...'
NTK is not compliant, for example re this requirement:

The NTK specifically fails on all counts. There are no 'parking charges' stipulated that 'remained unpaid' on the day of this event and no 'facts that made them payable' are given in the PCN (either/or not being sufficient to avoid ambiguity and to comply with the POFA 2012 or the 'test of transparency' required in contract law).



2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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.!

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 RoadTraffic 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:


''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) No landowner authority

Section 7 of the BPA CoP states that an operator must have the written authorisation of the Landowner, if the parking company does not own the land, which Parking Eye do not.

Paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I request Parking Eye provide proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not another agent, shop, etc) and I would also point out these mandatory requirements, which a vague ‘witness statement’ will not prove:

7.3 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 do not believe that the operator has a contract with the site landowner which meets all the requirements above.


4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The tariffs are prominent but the alleged 'parking charge' is far less clear.


There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.!

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

"imgur.com/a/AkMCN"

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.!

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

"2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg"

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are crowded and cluttered with too many words and a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in smaller print than the tariffs (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

"archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm"

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

"signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx"

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

"ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html"

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.!

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a orch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':!

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.!
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a adriver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

"bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html"

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective.

Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


5) The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye vs Beavis

It appears that a partial registration number may have been recorded, either by inadvertent error, or by failure of the operator's own keypad, or failure of the signage to make the full VRN a clear 'obligation' with risk of a penalty. No evidence has been produced either way by this operator as to the cause of the issue and it is not disputed by any party that there was certainly no attempt to avoid payment, which according to the complex signage, we contend was paid in full.

This situation is an 'ordinary' contract involving no overstay and no breach of the legitimate interests of the landowner. This was a simple consumer/trader transaction with a ticket for parking being purchased in good faith and produced by a machine and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position.

At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment in 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' it was held:

''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148:

“But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.” ''

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty;’ ''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary/standard contracts with a transaction and tariff paid at a machine:

''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''

This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination.

At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company:
''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

Clearly a charge out of all proportion to the tariff - which was paid in any case - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man, regardless of whether in the small print, the sign may have said somewhere 'enter the full registration'.A huge charge arising under the excuse of such a minor term is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA, enacted after the Beavis parking event) supports a consumer's position in at least two ways:

- the signage failed to make any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent.The CRA states: ''A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract or a written consumer notice is transparent. To be transparent it must be expressed in plain and intelligible language and be legible...any subject matter terms must not be hidden in any small print otherwise the price and the subject matter terms will be assessed for "fairness". ''

- Under Schedule 2 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' it includes: ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

As this charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.


6) It was also apparent on this day that the were issues with one or more of the parking machines.

Numerous people were complaining about incorrect tickets being printed, or simply that no tickets were being produced – this seemed to be intermittent and with the lack of onsite staff, this was causing a lot of doubt and lack of confidence in the machines to accurately record and print information.

I require the operator to produce the phone logs from the day in question – the volume of calls to the help line from this site will be apparent. This adds reason to doubt the integrity of the information supplied by Parking Eye, especially as they have failed to tell us if this was a case of an alleged (unspecified) underpayment or a faliure with their machines and/or keypads to record payments and properly issue P&D tickets.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
Yours faithfully

adp1

Also, do I need to write a brief description in the box on the POPLA website, or leave it blank and just upload my appeal letter (above) as a pdf as supporting evidence?

adp1

It also won't allow me to leave the other boxes empty...Help!!

Redx

just tick the box OTHER , upload your appeal in pdf format , add "see attached appeal" in the box and if asked for a phone number put zeros if you dont want to put a real one in

try to use a trash mail address , like a made up gmail one , not a personal one

see post #21 here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5538581

and edit post #15 and maybe #16 and remove the reference numbers etc , no identifiers on here

Carthesis

You may wish to add a little meat to point 6) by making reference to court cases (which can be found on the Parking Prankster blog) where dubious or non-working machines have caused "frustration of contract".

Coupon-mad

adp1 wrote: »

It also won't allow me to leave the other boxes empty...Help!!

Yes it does, if you don't click on them. Only click to highlight 'OTHER'.

None of this (below) sounds true, from your account? You weren't saying the VRN was wrongly recorded, nor that the machines weren't working so why copy a POPLA appeal that says that?

It appears that a partial registration number may have been recorded, either by inadvertent error, or by failure of the operator's own keypad, or failure of the signage to make the full VRN a clear 'obligation' with risk of a penalty.

6) It was also apparent on this day that the were issues with one or more of the parking machines.

Numerous people were complaining about incorrect tickets being printed, or simply that no tickets were being produced – this seemed to be intermittent and with the lack of onsite staff, this was causing a lot of doubt and lack of confidence in the machines to accurately record and print information.

Your account suggests to me that they are alleging you overstayed in which case you should argue 'Grace periods' and initial arrival 'observation period' to arrive, park and read the signs and queue at the machine, like the situation being discussed in carcuscrae's thread near yours.

I have no idea why you are trying to rush to put this in online before everyone's had a chance to offer comments. It's more important to get it right, than rush. What about using some of this one?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71490866#Comment_71490866

Sounds more similar to your case and the points 3 and 4 make more sense than some of what you've copied. You don't have your P&D ticket but the rest can be adapted. You must proof read it yourself, not us, to make sure what you copy is always relevant.

I also feel that there is no point arguing your point #1 about the NTK against a PE PCN where they have served it in time and it has the paragraph about ' 29 days/keeper liability'. I would remove #1 from your draft because POPLA will not buy it. Maybe leave in #2 for fun! You could replace #1 with #4 from the link I've just shown you.

And replace your signage template with the one shown there in the link, and replace your 'no landowner authority' point with the one shown there in the link, as it was specially written for Tower Road and alleges 15 mins grace applies and puts PE to proof otherwise (puts them on the spot).

Show us how the next draft looks, taking all comments so far on board.

And can you tell us the timings on your PCN, how many minutes/hours is the car shown on site and how many hours do you think were paid for? What's the overstay in total, going by their timings?