Blue Badge not seen in Free Car Park disabled bay

TRXbloke

I have been feeling a bit better this week so have thought about appealing again, as I have yet to pay the £15. I have made a draft letter to POPLA, your thoughts would be appreciated.
The pictures haven't copied but the show what is described.

............
Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re UKPC charge (POPLA code )

I am writing as the driver of this car (already admitted) who is not liable for the parking charge for several reasons, not least that to uphold it would constitute disability discrimination. In addition, the vehicle was not improperly parked and the parking 'charge' notice was nothing but a penalty as parking in this car park is free for all users.

I am 52 years old and have suffered chronic severe back pain, following a motorcycle accident, since 2002. I have been medically retired since 2011, and have been a Blue Badge holder since 2009.

Every step I take hurts, and being able to park in disabled bays is essential for me to be able to both get into and out of my vehicle, without exceptional pain, or damaging adjacent vehicles with my door, and to get to my destination without the pain becoming overbearing.


SUMMARY OF MY LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE DISABLED PARKING BAY

The situation is that I put my Blue Badge on a shelf, on the dashboard, which is not immediately visible unless you get close up and look over the leading edge of the dashboard. I place it there as if I place it on the dash itself, when I close the doors it either slides onto the floor, or slides to the window and disappears behind the dashboard through a gap between the dash and the window Where I put it is the only flat place I can. It has not proved to be a problem at this car park before and I have visited on about 15 occasions in the last 12 months, albeit in the daytime, this was my first visit at night, and I admit that it is harder to see when there are lights reflecting off the screen.

If the UKPC warden had looked with due diligence he would have seen the badge. His pictures show the head and ears of a small cuddly toy that was on the shelf with the badge, but is taken at an angle to show that my badge was not there.

This angle could have been by mistake, and the Blue Badge missed because a cursory glance was all that was applied, in which case UKPC could simply have cancelled the charge when they were made aware of the error. The fact that they continue to pursue me, albeit for a lesser charge of £15, despite accepting that I am a Blue Badge holder who is entitled to park in the place I did, inclines me to the assumption that this is a deliberate ploy to fraudulently charge me by scaring me with this deceptive picture as “evidence”.

 Picture provided as “evidence” by UKPC


The angle of the picture evidence provided by UKPC demonstrates an absence of proof, not a proof of absence of my badge. The below shows that if the angle had been higher it would have revealed my Blue Badge on the dashboard, in plain sight, as is has been for over two years without any issues.


I appealed against the Parking Charge but UKPC have rejected it and in doing so they have breached UK disability law. This 'charge' cannot be upheld by POPLA as it breaches the applicable primary law.

UKPC have acknowledged that I have a Blue Badge, and am therefore entitled to park in the bay, however they continue to harass me for a payment, now reduced to £15, despite this, when normal parking in this car park is free.


BREACH OF STATUTE, NAMELY THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND THE EHRC 'CODE OF PRACTICE ON SERVICES, PUBLIC FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) WHICH BECAME LAW ON 6TH APRIL 2011

The Operator and Woodside Leisure Park are service-providers who are relying on unenforceable terms which purport to create an inflexible contractual term 'requiring' disabled people to display a Council (on-street only) Blue Badge in order to use a disabled bay. In fact, the Blue Badge scheme does not even lawfully apply in private car parks - as is shown in the Blue Badge booklet and on the Government website. Companies such as UKPC might choose to mention the badge on their signs but they cannot legally rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need.

The Equality Act takes precedence over any 'contractual' terms and a blanket term to display a Blue Badge is specifically an 'unenforceable term' as defined in the Equality Act. It is an example of a blanket policy which seeks to limit the provision of the disabled bays to 'badge-display only' and thereby causes disadvantage to other people who have certain protected characteristics.

''EQUALITY ACT 2010
142(1) Unenforceable terms
A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; ''


Any term that UKPC may have on their signs to the effect 'Blue Badges only' is null and void if the effect is to deny a disabled person the statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty. This term unlawfully limits the disabled bay provision and UKPC have subjected me to 'detriment' and harassment.

The unenforceable term requiring all disabled people in those bays to show a Blue Badge may be the result of an ill-conceived attempt to ostensibly comply with the EA in order to convince Woodside Leisure Park that UKPC follow it. Indeed, it appears to be based on private parking industry-wide misconceptions about disability law. But as it specifically says in the EA, ignorance of disability law and lack of intention to discriminate is no defence for breach and I say that UKPC have shown no regard for the EA nor for the EHRC Statutory 'Equality Act - Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations'.

This parking charge issued as a result of an unenforceable term has created indirect disability discrimination and as such, it is a breach of the EA. It is also a breach of the statutory EHRC 'Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) which became law on 6 April 2011:

''5.4 What does the Act say?
Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.''

POPLA assessors have completely missed this legal requirement before and I would specifically cite the disabled driver's appeal in the case of Excel v Greenwood which was rejected by POPLA but won by the motorist in court. On 10th April 2013, a POPLA assessor, Shona Watson, erroneously decided in that case, that an Operator's terms & conditions to display a Blue Badge could circumvent the Equality Act 2010. Mr Greenwood subsequently faced Excel in Court on 4th October 2013, and in 3QT60496 the judge decided that the Operator had a legal duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' for a genuine disabled person.

The Operator's case was lost in court, showing that POPLA was wrong to allow t&cs over disability law - if I had no Blue Badge my case would be similar to Excel v Greenwood, and this is what UKPC were assuming when they issued the charge.

However I do have a Blue Badge, and UKPC have now accepted this as proof that I was entitled to park where I did - yet they still pursue me for a payment of £15, with a threat that if I go to POPLA this will increase to £90 - clear harassment and bullying tactics in order to extort money from me illegally.


OTHER POINTS OF APPEAL AGAINST THIS CHARGE

UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

It is a specific requirement of the BPA Code of Practice paragraph B(18.9) that there must be very clear terms & conditions signage at a height where a disabled driver could have read them when actually parking in a disabled bay - indeed without even needing to get out of the car.

Signs do exist, but are at a height of over 8 ft from the ground. I could not read the full terms on the signage as I have difficulty looking upwards due excruciating pain from my chronic back condition. There are no visible signs at head height either at these bays or elsewhere in the car park. Usually there are head height signs where the payment machines are located, however as this is a free car park no such machines are in place.

The only readable (large print) part of the sign was that the car park was for users of the Woodside Leisure Park. The actual terms are written in small print that is only easily readable at head height.

Furthermore the signs at the entrance to the car park only seem to suggest that people park within marked bays. It is not obvious that this is a managed car park, the signs do not have UKPC on them. This is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Schedule 18.2 “Entrance Signs” .
I say that the signs in that car park do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

OPERATOR PROCEDURES

The BPA Code of Conduct, Section 22.4, states

“If a driver or keeper appeals a parking charge you must review the case and decide whether to:

uphold the parking charge and explain why it was issued and should therefore be paid, or

reduce or cancel the charge and take no further management action other than informing the driver. “

In this case neither of these actions has been followed as the charge has been reduced but I have been threatened with further action if I either refuse to pay or take it to POPLA.
This is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Conduct.


CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS

UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for Woodside Leisure Park. UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). UKPC has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (not just a signed slip of paper from someone at Woodside Leisure Park) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable UKPC to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

I ask that this appeal be allowed and respectfully request POPLA consider the disability protection aspects of the EA in all future cases whether or not the appellant knows to raise it as an issue, as I have done here. A disabled person does not have to raise the Equality Act by name to be protected by its provisions and POPLA has stated that it will consider all applicable laws when making their decisions.

The EA and the EHRC Code of Practice I have referred to is statutory disability legislation which renders any parking contract term null and void if the effect is to deny a protected motorist or passenger their rights (whether it be the right to use a disabled bay unharrassed or the right to be allowed an extension on any arbitrary time limit for their visit).

POPLA must surely now order the Operator to cancel this fake PCN. I firmly believe that failure to do so could even leave POPLA exposed to a claim for disability discrimination because POPLA are also a service provider (with the same legal duties under the EA) and the Act is unequivocal.


Signed:


Dated:

Coupon-mad

Delete your POPLA code above (on this forum anyway), it's personal to you, don't let others see it/abuse it.

That looks at first glance like a really OLD template, remove ALL of this which has no chance:

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

UKPC are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

UKPC have not shown a breakdown of their alleged 'loss' - which cannot include their operational day-to-day running costs. No claim for loss for a 'breach of terms' can possibly apply to a disabled driver needing and using a 'reasonable adjustment' provision which is directly already provided by Woodside Leisure. Since this is, in any case, a FREE car park, there can have been no loss arising from this incident and the only elements of a contract I agreed to were between myself and Woodside Leisure alone. This parking space cannot somehow have been offered again - on more restrictive limited and discriminatory terms - by a mere agent, UKPC.

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This was the case in several compelling and comparable Court decisions such as UKCPS v Murphy April 2012 (a case involving a disabled bay and no Blue Badge, where the 'Parking Charge' was found to be a penalty). Also Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011).

The BPA Ltd (seeking advice on behalf of all AOS members, including UKPC) was warned about such charges being unenforceable by the Office of Fair Trading in 2013. The information that the Office of Fair Trading gave to the BPA Ltd on parking charges expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for {breach} under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings.

This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is therefore unenforceable.

TRXbloke

Ok I will remove as advised. Otherwise is there anything else that is obvious that I am missing?

Coupon-mad

Yes the pre-written longer POPLA templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Fruitcake

As above. The signage template appeal point in the NEWBIES is as long as your whole appeal, so it is obvious you have not used it.

TRXbloke

Hi ,
I have spent so much time on this that it is now becoming a big puddle of confusion. My meds are messing with my thoughts and I cant give this any more. I know this site aims to help, but there is so much information, much of it irrelevant, some of it outdated that I have found finding the "templates' all but impossible. Perhaps a new "templates" sticky should be created that has a template for each separate point of appeal.
Anyway, this is my last draft. If it isn't up to the job let me know and I will just pay the £15 as I can't refine it any more.
Thanks for all your input.

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re UKPC charge ( POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx )

I am writing as the driver of this vehicle (already admitted) who is not liable for the parking charge for several reasons, not least that to uphold it would constitute disability discrimination. In addition, the vehicle was not improperly parked and the parking 'charge' notice was nothing but a penalty as parking in this car park is free for all users.

I am 52 years old and have suffered chronic severe back pain, following a motorcycle accident, since 2002. I have been medically retired since 2011, and have been a Blue Badge holder since 2009.

Every step I take hurts, and being able to park in disabled bays is essential for me to be able to both get into and out of my vehicle, without exceptional pain, or damaging adjacent vehicles with my door, and to get to my destination without the pain becoming overbearing.


SUMMARY OF MY LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE DISABLED PARKING BAY

The situation is that I put my Blue Badge on a shelf, on the dashboard, which is not immediately visible unless you get close up and look over the leading edge of the dashboard. I place it there as if I place it on the dash itself, when I close the doors it either slides onto the floor, or slides to the window and disappears behind the dashboard through a gap between the dash and the window Where I put it is the only flat place I can. It has not proved to be a problem at this car park (or any other) before and I have visited on about 15 occasions in the last 12 months, albeit in the daytime, this was my first visit at night, and I admit that it is slightly harder to see when there are lights reflecting off the windscreen of the van.

If the UKPC warden had looked more diligently he would have seen the badge. His picture shows the head and ears of a small cuddly toy that was on the shelf with the badge, but is taken at an angle that hides my Blue Badge from view.

This angle could have been by mistake, and the Blue Badge missed because a cursory glance was all that was applied, in which case UKPC should simply have cancelled the charge when they were made aware of the situation. The fact that they now continue to pursue me, albeit for a lesser charge of £15, despite accepting that I am a Blue Badge holder who is entitled to park in the place I did, inclines me to the assumption that this is a deliberate ploy to fraudulently charge me by scaring me with this deceptive picture as “evidence”.

 Picture provided as “evidence” by UKPC
(JPEG)

The angle of the picture evidence provided by UKPC demonstrates an absence of any proof, not proof of absence of my badge. The below shows that if the angle had been higher it would have revealed my Blue Badge on the dashboard, in plain sight, as it has been for over two years without any issues.

(JPEG 2

A video clip has been attached to show this more clearly.
I appealed against the Parking Charge but UKPC have rejected it and in doing so they have breached UK disability law. This 'charge' cannot be upheld by POPLA as it breaches the applicable primary law.

UKPC have acknowledged that I have a Blue Badge, and am therefore entitled to park in the bay, however they continue to harass me for a payment, now reduced to £15, despite this, when normal parking in this car park is FREE.


BREACH OF STATUTE, NAMELY THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND THE EHRC 'CODE OF PRACTICE ON SERVICES, PUBLIC FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) WHICH BECAME LAW ON 6TH APRIL 2011

The Operator and Woodside Leisure Park are service-providers who are relying on unenforceable terms which purport to create an inflexible contractual term 'requiring' disabled people to display a Council (on-street only) Blue Badge in order to use a disabled bay. In fact, the Blue Badge scheme does not even lawfully apply in private car parks - as is shown in the Blue Badge booklet and on the Government website. Companies such as UKPC might choose to mention the badge on their signs but they cannot legally rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need.

The Equality Act takes precedence over any 'contractual' terms and a blanket term to display a Blue Badge is specifically an 'unenforceable term' as defined in the Equality Act. It is an example of a blanket policy which seeks to limit the provision of the disabled bays to 'badge-display only' and thereby causes disadvantage to other people who have certain protected characteristics.

''EQUALITY ACT 2010
142(1) Unenforceable terms
A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; ''


Any term that UKPC may have on their signs to the effect 'Blue Badges only' is null and void if the effect is to deny a disabled person the statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty. This term unlawfully limits the disabled bay provision and UKPC have subjected me to 'detriment' and harassment.

The unenforceable term requiring all disabled people in those bays to show a Blue Badge may be the result of an ill-conceived attempt to ostensibly comply with the EA in order to convince Woodside Leisure Park that UKPC follow it. Indeed, it appears to be based on private parking industry-wide misconceptions about disability law. But as it specifically says in the EA, ignorance of disability law and lack of intention to discriminate is no defence for breach and I say that UKPC have shown no regard for the EA nor for the EHRC Statutory 'Equality Act - Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations'.

This parking charge issued as a result of an unenforceable term has created indirect disability discrimination and as such, it is a breach of the EA. It is also a breach of the statutory EHRC 'Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) which became law on 6 April 2011:

''5.4 What does the Act say?
Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.''

POPLA assessors have completely missed this legal requirement before and I would specifically cite the disabled driver's appeal in the case of Excel v Greenwood which was rejected by POPLA but won by the motorist in court. On 10th April 2013, a POPLA assessor, Shona Watson, erroneously decided in that case, that an Operator's terms & conditions to display a Blue Badge could circumvent the Equality Act 2010. Mr Greenwood subsequently faced Excel in Court on 4th October 2013, and in 3QT60496 the judge decided that the Operator had a legal duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' for a genuine disabled person.

The Operator's case was lost in court, showing that POPLA was wrong to allow t&c’s over disability law - if I had no Blue Badge my case would be similar to Excel v Greenwood, and this is what UKPC were assuming when they issued the charge.

However I do have a Blue Badge, and UKPC have now accepted this as proof that I was entitled to park where I did - yet they still pursue me for a payment of £15, with a threat that if I go to POPLA this will increase to £90 - clear harassment (and bullying tactics in order to extort money from me illegally) and a clear breach of the Equality Act 2010.


OTHER POINTS OF APPEAL AGAINST THIS CHARGE

UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

It is a specific requirement of the BPA Code of Practice (paragraph 18.10) that there must be very clear terms & conditions signage at a height where a disabled driver could have read them when actually parking in a disabled bay - indeed without even needing to get out of the car.

Signs do exist, but are at a height of over 8 ft from the ground. I could not read the full terms on the signage as I have difficulty looking upwards due excruciating pain from my chronic back condition. There are no visible signs at head height either at these bays or elsewhere in the car park. Usually there are head height signs where the payment machines are located, however as this is a FREE car park no such machines are in place.

The only readable (large print) part of the sign was that the car park was for users of the “Woodside Leisure Park” and that “Parking Conditions Apply”. The actual parking terms, however, are written in small print that is not easy to read. Presumably the details of the parking charge are also contained in this small print area of the sign, I couldn’t say as I was unable to read it properly, and the supplied picture from UKPC also fails to show what these details are. Indeed the UKPC picture does a very good job of showing just how difficult it is to actually read the terms and the difference in font sizes used for the titles and the actual terms.

Clause 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice specifically reads...

“18.10 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists”

Here is the picture taken by UKPC as evidence.

(JPEG3)
It is nigh on impossible to read these signs from within a vehicle.

Furthermore the signs at the entrance to the car park only seem to suggest that people park within marked bays. It is not obvious that this is a managed car park, the signs have no reference to UKPC, as the managing company, anywhere on them, and no reference to a parking charge if rules are breached.

This is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Schedule 18.2 “Entrance Signs” .

I say that the signs in that car park do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements.


OPERATOR PROCEDURES

The BPA Code of Conduct, Section 22.4, states

“22.4 If a driver or keeper appeals a parking charge you must review the case and decide whether to:

uphold the parking charge and explain why it was issued and should therefore be paid, or

reduce or cancel the charge and take no further management action other than informing the driver. “

In this case neither of these actions has been followed as the charge has been reduced but I have been threatened with further action if I either refuse to pay or take it to POPLA.
This is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Conduct.


CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS

UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for Woodside Leisure Park. UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). UKPC has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (not just a signed slip of paper from someone at Woodside Leisure Park) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable UKPC to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

I ask that this appeal be allowed and respectfully request POPLA consider the disability protection aspects of the EA in all future cases whether or not the appellant knows to raise it as an issue, as I have done here. A disabled person does not have to raise the Equality Act by name to be protected by its provisions and POPLA has stated that it will consider all applicable laws when making their decisions.

The EA and the EHRC Code of Practice I have referred to is statutory disability legislation which renders any parking contract term null and void if the effect is to deny a protected motorist or passenger their rights (whether it be the right to use a disabled bay unharassed or the right to be allowed an extension on any arbitrary time limit for their visit).

POPLA must surely now order the Operator to cancel this fake PCN. I firmly believe that failure to do so could even leave POPLA exposed to a claim for disability discrimination because POPLA are also a service provider (with the same legal duties under the EA) and the Act is unequivocal.

Signed:

Dated:

Coupon-mad

I think along with the video you mention, showing how the BB is displayed in the slightly recessed part of your dash, that is fine as above...

One change, I would remove this do not give them an inch, no admission:

albeit in the daytime, this was my first visit at night, and I admit that it is slightly harder to see when there are lights reflecting off the windscreen of the van.

Good luck and make sure you upload your PDF appeal and the video successfully on the POPLA webpage (uploaded evidence morphs into a little 'bin' icon) before submitting it because POPLA will not let you add more evidence separately afterwards.

In your case as you have admitted to driving and are using a slightly different style POPLA appeal and video evidence than we normally suggest in our templates, I would say you can tick whichever reasons for appeal match your circumstances (normally we say only tick 'other' but in your case I think you can honestly tick some other boxes too).

You will see what I mean when you try the awful POPLA website! Make sure the uploaded PDF appeal and video are in place because you cannot fit the above into an appeal box and only a PDF will allow you to show them pictures.

TRXbloke

OK thanks. I will post and keep you updated as to the outcome.

Fruitcake

This is the template appeal for signage. As you can see it is much longer than yours. You should amalgamate your signage points with this one.

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.

You should embed the images rather than quote links to make sure the assessor actually looks at them.

TRXbloke

Appeal submitted. I know what you mean about UKPC's site. What a palava.