UKPC ticket unusual one ????

Coupon-mad

Do you want to send me a pm about it?

r2theb1984

Might be for the best as you will have the knowledge, i did try earlier but it said you werent accepting pm

r2theb1984

ok guys this is whats been happening
The full story so far ...


Ticket was issued on my windscreen on the 29th December...

Returned to car park and roadside on the 6th January to see no sign on lamppost ???
great i thought there was no sign there .. they can do no more

Spoke to who was driving my car and explained don't worry there's no sign on the post they cant do anything..

his reply

"there was definitely a sign on the grey lamp post next to car. I didn't notice it myself till it was actually daylight"

I looked a little further and notice a newly painted blue lamp post and a ukpc sign at the side of it on the floor.
Roadside sign £70 bla bla bla... Probably been removed from the post to allow for painting.

Gutted i thought there was actually a sign, then i remember friend saying "it says £100 on the ticket"..
well this sign says £70... they cant give you a ticket for £100 when the sign says £70
Great !!!
took photos of it.

Also took photos of all other roadside and carpark signs on the surrounding posts and fences , also 2 signs that were on the carpark maybe 100ft away , looks like they had also been removed from 2 lamppost on the car park to allow painting..

Returned again on the morning of the 7th to take more photos to show just how dark and impossible these signs were to see early morning.

9th of January started my thread on money saving expert armed with all my photos and hoping for some help..

Returned again on the evening of the 10th to show how difficult these signs are to see at night and also prove there not illuminated in anyway ...even thow there attached to lamp post they weren't turned on.

It was on this visit i noticed the cardboard sign had now been removed from the gate and also the roadside sign £70 bla bla had been attached at the bottom of the newly painted lamp post.

Great Il keep my eye on it and wait for it to be fitted further up and get a photo. took a photo of the sign at the bottom of the post anyways..

NOW this is were things have now changed ....

12th January

I was walking past the car park and notice workers putting up signs on the car park lamppost, I look over to the lamppost were my car was parked and can see a white object attached to it ...
BOOM .... Time to get the £70 sign attached further up the lamppost were my car was parked....

well have a guess whats there now peeps.....

Yep a £100 CAR PARK sign attached to the newly painted blue lamppost on the ROADSIDE !!!!!!
All other roadside signs remain at £70 all apart from the one that was near my car...
anyone else think that's strange...

a CAR PARK sign stating car park rules on the ROADSIDE ???? ....

I haven't been in any contact with UKPC regarding any of this

This sign was changed sometime between the 10th and the 12th
I started my thread about this on the 9th so please be very careful they are clearly very active on the forum.

The good thing about this particular sign tho is the new £100 car park sign attached to the roadside lamp post was actually a sign id previously taken a photo of on the 6th...

Remember the 2 signs on the CAR PARK the ones removed from the 2 car park lamppost...
Yep one of those signs has now made its way all the way over to the ROADSIDE lamppost and is now fitted ...
I know its the same sign because its got blue paint splashes on it making it easy to identify from any of the others ...

These are the sort of tactics UKPC will try to steal your hard earned wages.

luckily i now have 30 plus photos of all signs mentioned above with meta details, date stamps and times , Also managed to get in contact with 3 other people and waiting to hear back from 2 more who also received £100 tickets when there vehicles were actually parked next to £70 signs ..... oops ukpc im not the only one.

Now i wonder if any more signs will be changed over the next couple of days haha

I will go through the motions of appeal with ukpc and then popla etc etc to get this ticket cancelled as the newbies thread suggest but will also be compiling my complaint to the DVLA and BPA with all my supporting evidence photos etc etc just waiting to here back from the other people who they tried to shaft as well.

will keep you all updated as things progress and may also need a bit of help/advice with the dvla complaint ...

Big thanks to fruitcake and coupon mad so far for all there help its really appreciated guys

the location of this carpark was
Milner street
warrington
wa5 1ad

Castle

r2theb1984 wrote: »

the location of this carpark was
Milner street
warrington
wa5 1ad

Get in contact with the council to see if they have advertising consent for all of these signs.

Fruitcake

Castle wrote: »

Get in contact with the council to see if they have advertising consent for all of these signs.

Especially the ones on the roadside, and extra-especially if they are on a public road/footpath!

r2theb1984

hi every one bit of an update . I appealed as the registered keeper using the forum template at about day 26, i got a rejection email no surprise , it was actually receaved on the 6th of feb giving me a popla code and 28days to make an appeal, didnt actually notice the email till last week and only because iv been counting the days, its now been a total of 61 days after the pcn was first issued so as were just passed the 56 and no NTK from what iv read they cant pursue me anyways



Iv compiled a popla appeal from all the other threads on this board and just wanted to check it all looks ok before submitting it wednesday/thursday , the deadline is sunday 5th for popla


Another point to make is they have now changed all there roadside signs to fit the £100 charge, they basically put a £100 sticker over the £70 . iv taken photos of the signs with these stickers on and will post the link so you can have a look, more to include in my complaint to the dvla once the popla stuff is out the way.

photos
hxxxs://xxx.dropbox.com/sh/cxz8vn8zueshsj7/AACtNA6b3naRra9484BWbCbDa?dl=0
just need to put a ttp and www were the x is


there response to my 1st appeal




Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to the above Parking Charge.
We have investigated your appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm this Parking Charge was correctly issued for the following reasons.

There is no parking in the roadway or on kerb stones at Milner Street and there are sufficient signs warning drivers that doing so will result in a Parking Charge being issued.

All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.

The contract that UKPC has with the owner or occupier of the land (which authorises UKPC to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of Parking Charges in respect of parking of the vehicle on the land) contains a confidentiality clause and as such we are not in a position to provide the contract to you.

As a member of the Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC are audited by the British Parking Association to ensure that we have all relevant contracts in place. UKPC will provide the court with a copy of this in full if they require it, or can provide a written statement to this effect from those party to the contract. We are also more than happy to provide confirmation to the independent assessors that we are authorised to manage parking at this site.

We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd.

Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that we must inform the registered keeper that the driver of a vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that as we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e. us) of the name and current address of the driver and pass the notice to them.

The Act also warns that if, at the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the Parking Charge is sent), the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, the operator has the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to us complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act (which we consider we do comply with, to the letter).

Our Appeals process is now concluded, you may now pick one of the following options:

1. Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of £60 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER
OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA – Submit an appeal online at https://www.popla.co.uk within 28 days of the date of this letter using the verification code above. “Alternatively if you do not have internet access, you can send a letter to POPLA,
PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL within 28 days of the date of this letter using the verification code above.” Pleasenote that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £60, and should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (https://www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then youmust do so to POPLA, as explained above


and here is my popla appeal it will also include all relevent photos

r2theb1984

POPLA Ref
UKPC Parking Charge Notice no

Dear POPLA Adjudicato
I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx i was not the driver of the vechile when the pcn was issued and am appealing the parking charge from UKPC on the following points:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

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

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

4. 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 was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

The windscreen pcn was issued on 29/12/2016 giving UKPC till 23/02/2017 to issue a notice to keeper if they wanted to pursue the registered keeper , as i wright this appeal its now 28/02/2017 and still no NTK meaning they have missed there timeframe to pursue me the registered keeper

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.


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.''


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

The car was parked on a roadside next to a carpark. there are signs on the carpark and signs along the roadside. All carpark signs and all roadside signs differ in detail and parking charge amount.
All CAR PARK located signs state in very small font: '£100 charge reduced to £60'. Other information on that sign includes 'disabled badge only in disabled bays, all vehicles parked within bay and max 3hr stay'.
All ROADSIDE located signs state in an extremely tiny font: '£70 charge reduced to £40'. Again other information on the sign include 'no roadway parking, no parking on yellow lines and no parking on pavments or grassed areas'.
The car was parked on the roadside NOT the carpark, the window pcn issued stated "parked in a roadway". The photographic evidence from UKPC showed the car parked on the roadside, but the PCN was issued with a charge of £100 and not the £70 that the roadside signs state.
As you can see from UKPC's photographs of my vehicle, the signs are barely visible with branches etc obscuring the view. The actual text is completly unreadable. This would be even less visible early morning /evening due to the fact these signs are NOT illuminated in any way at all.
Further evidence of the unreadable signs is the fact UKPC's own trained staff who deal with these signs daily were unable to read the details and the text of the signs correctly, therefore it is completely unreasonable to expect members of the public to be able to read these ridiculously small printed signs, as detailed in POFA 4 - 'adequate notice of the parking charge'. This is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice.

Also worth mentioning is the sign in question and now other roadside signs have since been changed AFTER the pcn was first issued. First was the ROADSIDE sign next to my car, the sign that the UKPC operator struggled to read correctly which stated the roadside terms of '£70 charge reduced to £40, no roadway parking, no parking on yellow lines and no parking on pavments or grassed areas' has been replaced with a CARPARK sign stating the terms of '£100 charge reduced to £60, disabled badge only in disabled bays, all vehicles parked within bay and max 3hr stay'.
This new sign now makes no sense in this location of the ROADSIDE, Its a carpark sign with carpark terms stating 'Disabled badge only in disabled bays, all vehicles parked within bay and max 3hr stay' theres no reason to place this sign on a roadside its a carpark sign, A likely reason for the change of the sign was a tactic by UKPC to try and fraudulently enforce the £100 pcn after there operater couldnt read there sign clearly
They have also now changed all surrounding Roadside signs to fit the £100 charge by placing a small sticker with £100 over the orignal £70, probally a tactic to cover more of there mistakes and frauduntly claim £100 from other wrongfully issued tickets.
Because of the above 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.''

r2theb1984

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. 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.''

2.The signs in this car park / roadside 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.



4. 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

Perfect - except you have point #2 twice (once before #3 and once after)!

DollyDee_2

Is Milner Street definitely a private road?

I've been googling and found this which to be honest I don't understand:o Lower right is the (possibly) relevant bit.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50229/page/11268/data.pdf



Edit : deleted link as it was not working but was stretching the thread