Parking Eye Hospital PCN via Leasing company

safarmuk

There is likely a character limit by post, so break your draft appeal into two or three posts.

dadsma

POPLA Appeal - DRAFT 1

I write as the keeper/hirer to lodge my formal submission for Alternative Dispute Resolution of my dispute with Parking Eye Ltd (“Parking Eye”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead on xxxxxxx

Although the registered keeper of the above-detailed vehicle is Lex Autolease Ltd (“Lex”), at the material time of the alleged breach, this vehicle was on hire to me and I confirm that I am the vehicle’s hirer and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1)A compliant Notice to Keeper or Hirer was never served on me - No keeper or hirer liability can apply - Parking Eye failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA

2)The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

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




1. A compliant Notice to Keeper or Hirer was never served on me - No keeper or hirer liability can apply - Parking Eye failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA -

Failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer

In order to rely upon POFA to be able to hold me liable in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer, ParkingEye had to deliver a Notice to Hirer that fully met all of POFA’s strict requirements.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA; the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge are set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)).

Paragraph 14(5) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must:

(a) inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
(b) refer the hirer to the information contained in the notice to keeper;
(c) warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(d) inform the hirer of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(e) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made; and
(f) specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

Despite being provided with my details as the vehicle’s hirer, Parking Eye failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer (compliant or otherwise) to me within the relevant period specified within Schedule 4 of POFA.

Given its failure to comply with the requirements of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA as detailed above, Parking Eye’s claim against me (in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer) must be determined as being invalid.

Failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Keeper

Schedule 4 of POFA defines “keeper” as meaning the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. In this case the contrary has been proved; in addition to being the vehicle’s hirer, I am also its keeper.

Given that it has been proven that Lex was not the vehicle’s keeper (as defined under Schedule 4 of POFA), there are no circumstances where Lex may be liable for this Parking Charge.

Furthermore, given that Parking Eye did not deliver a Notice to Keeper to me within the relevant period specified under Schedule 4 of POFA, Parking Eye has no valid claim against me (in my capacity as the vehicle’s keeper).


2)The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all 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.

This is a picture showing the position of the parking signs where a vehicle turns off the public highway on to the hospital entrance roadway. You can see that as the vehicle turned left, the signs are not in front of the driver but parallel to the roadway on the left hand (passenger) side of the vehicle and placed at the back of the pavement, hence not visible for the driver to see and read. The driver, once past the initial signs then turns immediately left to access the drop-off and pick-up area.


This is a picture showing the position of the parking signs at the drop-off and pick-up area. You can see that they are small and placed at intermittent intervals high up on a wall at the back of the pavement. They are difficult to read by a driver waiting in the vehicle. In this case the passenger exited the vehicle and fetched a patient from a ward following an amputation.

The poor placement of signs as the driver entered the hospital grounds, the lack of additional signs along the subsequent route to the pick-up and drop-off area, and the poor placement of signs at the drop-off/pick-up area gave the driver no reasonable opportunity to read and consider whether a contractual offer was being made by Parking Eye.

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.


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

dadsma

Bump - need to get it in today so I look forward to further suggestions please. Thank you

dadsma wrote: »

POPLA Appeal - DRAFT 1

I write as the keeper/hirer to lodge my formal submission for Alternative Dispute Resolution of my dispute with Parking Eye Ltd (“Parking Eye”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead on xxxxxxx

Although the registered keeper of the above-detailed vehicle is Lex Autolease Ltd (“Lex”), at the material time of the alleged breach, this vehicle was on hire to me and I confirm that I am the vehicle’s hirer and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1)A compliant Notice to Keeper or Hirer was never served on me - No keeper or hirer liability can apply - Parking Eye failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA

2)The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

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




1. A compliant Notice to Keeper or Hirer was never served on me - No keeper or hirer liability can apply - Parking Eye failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA -

Failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer

In order to rely upon POFA to be able to hold me liable in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer, ParkingEye had to deliver a Notice to Hirer that fully met all of POFA’s strict requirements.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA; the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge are set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)).

Paragraph 14(5) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must:

(a) inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
(b) refer the hirer to the information contained in the notice to keeper;
(c) warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(d) inform the hirer of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(e) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made; and
(f) specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

Despite being provided with my details as the vehicle’s hirer, Parking Eye failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer (compliant or otherwise) to me within the relevant period specified within Schedule 4 of POFA.

Given its failure to comply with the requirements of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA as detailed above, Parking Eye’s claim against me (in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer) must be determined as being invalid.

Failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Keeper

Schedule 4 of POFA defines “keeper” as meaning the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. In this case the contrary has been proved; in addition to being the vehicle’s hirer, I am also its keeper.

Given that it has been proven that Lex was not the vehicle’s keeper (as defined under Schedule 4 of POFA), there are no circumstances where Lex may be liable for this Parking Charge.

Furthermore, given that Parking Eye did not deliver a Notice to Keeper to me within the relevant period specified under Schedule 4 of POFA, Parking Eye has no valid claim against me (in my capacity as the vehicle’s keeper).


2)The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all 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.

This is a picture showing the position of the parking signs where a vehicle turns off the public highway on to the hospital entrance roadway. You can see that as the vehicle turned left, the signs are not in front of the driver but parallel to the roadway on the left hand (passenger) side of the vehicle and placed at the back of the pavement, hence not visible for the driver to see and read. The driver, once past the initial signs then turns immediately left to access the drop-off and pick-up area.


This is a picture showing the position of the parking signs at the drop-off and pick-up area. You can see that they are small and placed at intermittent intervals high up on a wall at the back of the pavement. They are difficult to read by a driver waiting in the vehicle. In this case the passenger exited the vehicle and fetched a patient from a ward following an amputation.

The poor placement of signs as the driver entered the hospital grounds, the lack of additional signs along the subsequent route to the pick-up and drop-off area, and the poor placement of signs at the drop-off/pick-up area gave the driver no reasonable opportunity to read and consider whether a contractual offer was being made by Parking Eye.

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.


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

Coupon-mad

I would add the template that says there is no evidence that the appellant is the individual liable (driver) as the appeal is submitted by the keeper.

dadsma

SUCCESS!! I am sorry it took so long to post this but we won at POPLA because PE failed to provide any evidence to contest the appeal points. My massive thanks to all on the forum who helped.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news!

salsterberry

Can anyone help? I've received a parking charge through the post from Parking Eye for Gravel car park Beacon Rd Bournemouth. I only received this today 20/09/17 but the "event" was 30/08/17. I was not the driver. There are also 2 issue dates on the "invoice" 1 being 30/08/17 the other 16/09/17. Am I right in thinking they've not issued this within 14 days of the event or that because I've not received it within 14 days of the event that I have grounds not to pay this. It's for £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days of issue which is confusing as they've put 2 issue dates. I don't know what to do.

Umkomaas

Why are you jumping in on someone else's thread? Forum rules, one case, one thread, otherwise advice gets confusing and potentially dangerous/expensive.

You've got a potentially good case with the dates as you've highlighted, if correct, but you do need a new thread of your own. But everyone is asked politely to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 first before firing off with a new thread so they have some understanding of what this is all about and to save regulars having to type out lengthy, but basic information, for the zillionth time.

salsterberry

I'm really sorry I couldn't find the "New thread" area. Where is it?

Umkomaas

salsterberry wrote: »

I'm really sorry I couldn't find the "New thread" area. Where is it?

First you need to read the NEWBIES sticky before you open a new thread, so you have some basic understanding of this stuff, because the forum is always mega busy and the very small number of regulars don't have the time to be typing reams of the same basic information for newbies who won't/can't do some research of their own.

Then once the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 has been read and understood, anything not clear can be asked in a new thread - there's a red button a little way down the first page of the forum, just one page back from this one (use the < back button to access it). It's cunningly disguised by the title 'New Thread'.