Parking Ticket outside Sainsbur's (Horizon)

Danny30

Hi All,

I got an unexpected parking ticket outside Sainsbury's today for overstaying. It has been a while since I had a private parking invoice so I was just wondering if the same letters as 2 years ago would apply i.e actual loss of earnings.

Below are 2 letters that I have used before.. 1 to Horizon and one to Popla. Do you think that these would still be okay?



To Horizon
Date of Contravention:
Date of issue:
Vehicle Reg:
Ref No:


The keeper wishes to challenge your invoice on the basis that you do not have the authority of the landowner to levy these charges. The keeper requires you to supply a copy of the relevant sections of the contract that you are working under in order for the keeper to check

(a) the contract is, in fact, with the landowner whose details have been supplied to me by the council and

(b) in order for the keeper to check the limit of your authority to levy charges as some landowner contracts do not, in fact, grant that authority.

(c) In addition, after thoroughly checking your signage the keeper believes you are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.

If you reject this challenge please provide within 35 days a popla verification code per the BPA Code of Practice, if no code is supplied with any rejection you supply its deemed that you have accepted this challenge.
The keeper reserves the right, after further research, to add other points that may emerge to any POPLA Appeal.


TO Popla


Name:
Address:
Date

Without prejudice, except as to costs

Parking Charge Notice Letter 250929/836799
On 16/07/2013 I was the registered keeper of a VW Bora registration number

---

.

I would like to appeal your parking charge as I feel that this charge is not valid due to the circumstances listed below, I should be grateful if you would first answer all the questions and deal with all the issues I have set out below. Once you have done so, I will be able to make an informed decision on how I deal with the matter.

Please note that although I dispute the whole basis of the parking charge, my main concern is its disproportionate and punitive level.

1. No contract

There was no contract between the driver and [insert name of parking company]. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

2. Trespass

If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty of a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this were the case, the driver may be liable to damages. Given that no ‘damage’ was done to the car park and that the car park was not completely full when the driver parked or when the driver left, there was in fact no loss at all.

3. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge

Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the following matters are relevant:

3(a). Punitive

The parking charge you are imposing is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable). The £[insert amount] parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. This would also apply to any mention of any costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order.


3(b). Unfair

The £[insert amount] parking charge you are imposing is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations which gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e):

‘Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.’

Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) says:

‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer’

And 5(2), which states:

‘A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.’

3(c). Unreasonable

The £[insert amount] parking charge you are imposing is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:

‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

Further information I require you to provide and take notice of:

Please note specifically that this letter is not an appeal however, it is a challenge to the issue of the Notice to Driver/Keeper (delete as appropriate) as set out in the BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22. I should be grateful for answers to all questions raised. In this respect I remind you of the obligations set out in the current Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

4(a). Cause of action.

Please make this clear. If it is your claim that the driver entered into a contract, please send me a complete version of the terms and conditions of that contract to which you say the driver agreed to.

4(b). Further to the above please explain fully on which of the following grounds your claim is based:

(i) Damages for trespass
(ii) Damages for breach of contract
(iii) A contractual sum
5. Your loss.

If it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages, please give me a full breakdown of the actual loss you say was suffered by your business or the landowner/landholder.

6. Appeals procedure.

I require a copy of any appeal procedure you follow, along with details of what factors you take into account; who is the judge or arbitrator and whether they are independent; whether you require oral or written submissions; whether it is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 and any other relevant factors. In addition, please give me disclosure of any arguments you would put forward on this matter in any subsequent appeal process so that either the registered keeper or the driver might consider his or her response to any existing or new issues which are raised.

7. Your status.

Your Notice to Driver/Keeper (delete as appropriate) simply mentions [Insert name of parking company if that is who is named on the NTD/NTK]. Please tell me who is the actual creditor making this £[insert amount] parking charge demand. I need to know exactly who is making the claim and in what capacity.

8. Ownership of premises.

Please tell me who owns the car park as I wish to send them a copy of this letter.
9. Contract to operate.

Please provide me with a copy of the contract between your company and the landowner/landholder.
10. Involvement of landowner/landholder.

Please explain any involvement, if at all, of the landowner/landholder with the management of parking at this site and specifically with regard to the issue and enforcement of your Notices to Driver/Keeper. (delete as appropriate)
11(a). Photographs- handling.

Your notice refers to ‘photographic evidence’. Please send me a copy of your procedures for handling and processing that evidence and the relevant audit trail. Furthermore, under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 please send me a copy of all such photographs along with a copy of all other data you hold relating to me. As this would be required to be disclosed in any event as part of your evidence bundle in the small claims process, I do not expect to pay for the release of my personal data which you hold.
11(b). Photographs – evidence.

The copies of the photographs that you have provided along with the Parking Charge Notice merely show my vehicle entering and leaving the car park but do not show the actual alleged parking contravention on which your Parking Charge Notice has been issued. Please therefore provide me with copies of all photographs that evidence the actual alleged parking contravention itself

12. Signage.

If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please send me photographs of the signs that you display and upon which you seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was been entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner. Please provide me with a diagram showing the locations and layout of those signs at the car park. Also provide evidence that the wording is in plain and intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s entry point.
13. Legal representation.
Please provide me with the name and address of your solicitors, if any, in order that I may copy them into this correspondence.

14. To avoid doubt, please do not do any of the following:
(i) Send any further correspondence or documents to me or try to communicate with me in any way except to address in writing the specific points I have raised in this letter.
(ii) Send me any document purporting to be from the county court unless it is a valid claim form duly issued.
(iii) Write to me threatening to send bailiffs to my address without first issuing a court claim form and obtaining judgment.
(iv) Send me any standard letters from your company or debt collectors.
15. If you wish to make a claim you may do so online. My address for service is set out at the top of this letter. If you do decide to issue proceedings, please note that:
(i) I reserve the right to add further arguments to the defence
(ii) I or my representative will be happy to attend any court mediation that might be offered.
16. I look forward to receiving your acknowledgement within 14 days and a comprehensive reply within 35 days (in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22.8). I will then be able to make an informed decision as to how I shall respond to your Notice to Driver/Keeper (delete as appropriate).
17. If you reject this challenge or fail to address the issues that have been raised then, in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA code’) so that I may immediately refer the matter for their decision.
18. If you fail to follow any of the procedures outlined in the BPA AOS Code of Practice or your legal requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act, or the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct then I will make a formal complaint to the DVLA Data Sharing Policy Group, D16.
Please Note: Unless you have specifically requested it and received my express permission, you do not have my authority to disclose or refer this letter or any other communication from me to any other person or organisation

Redx

not a gpeol is dead in the water since BEAVIS lost 12 months ago

I would advise you to follow the advice given in the NEWBIES sticky thread and not use 2 year old out of date letters like the above , the correct template appeal is in blue text

any popla appeal should follow the template type arguments posted by coupon mad recently in the POPLA DECISIONS thread, to take account of all the changes in the last 13 months or so

Danny30

Hi, I forgot to change the name of the company. It is actually Horizon, not parking eye.

Redx wrote: »

not a gpeol is dead in the water since BEAVIS lost 12 months ago

I would advise you to follow the advice given in the NEWBIES sticky thread and not use 2 year old out of date letters like the above , the correct template appeal is in blue text

any popla appeal should follow the template type arguments posted by coupon mad recently in the POPLA DECISIONS thread, to take account of all the changes in the last 13 months or so

Redx

makes no difference to my advice

Danny30

Redx wrote: »

makes no difference to my advice

Hi Redx, It's not a legal issue. I just received a ticket outside Sainsbury's from Horizon. I have searched but allergens appeals seem to be vl for specific parking companies. Can't find one for horizon.

Redx

just use the BPA appeal written in blue text from the NEWBIES sticky thread

its "one size fits all" for all BPA members , including Horizon

the appeal is sent around day 25 for a windscreen ticket , as keeper

all the info you require is in that one thread

the POPLA appeal is bespoke but based on 2016 posts mainly by coupon mad

anything 2 years old is completely outdated

Danny30

I haven't been able to find one recent popla letter yet. Any idea whereabouts these are?

Redx

sticky threads are "stuck" to the top of this forum , above your thread

I would have thought that you were forum savvy with 120 posts to your name ?

its about the second thread down and reading it is MANDATORY for anyone wanting up to date advice

the fact that your letters dont mention BEAVIS 2015 or the contracts law 2013 , never mind the CRA 2015 show me they are woefully out of touch

its also a different popla than it was back then too

as for POPLA appeals, I did tell you to read the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread and use the coupon mad entries to tailor your popla appeal later in the process (its the top sticky thread)

there are also plenty of recent links to recent successful popla appeals posted by members in that thread too

your HORIZON appeal (which has already been written by coupon mad and highlighted in blue) will be sent in 25 days time, seeing as its a windscreen ticket

Danny30

Okay, thanks redx. Below is my letter templates.

Letter to Horizon

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.

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. 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



LETTER TO POPLA



Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC on the following points:


1) 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

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:

http://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:

http://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 unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with 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 small print (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:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

http://www.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:

http://www.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 torch 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 driver 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:

http://www.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.







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 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.''


3). No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

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


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 driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

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

Danny30

Hi, I am about to send this off. Can anyone please confirm if this is sufficient to send to horizon and then popla?

Fruitcake

STOP!

You are jumping the gun. If you got a windscreen ticket today you are far too early to appeal.

You can't appeal to PoPLA until you have a PoPLA code. You can't get a PoPLA code unless you have had your initial appeal rejected.

So, just send the BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES thread. If you got a windscreen ticket then DO NOT send it until around day 25-26. You must go back and read, then re-read the NEWBIES thread to understand how to beat the scammers.

Don't blow it by appealing too soon, but don't miss the appeal deadline. Do not reveal who was driving either.