Parking Eye rejection how do I do a POPLA appeal re Mayflower Terminal Parking

srvlee1

Hi
I have spent a couple of days reading around the various notices on this and other oarking forums before sending the following appeal to Parking Eye.
They have only sent me one communication by post headed Parking Charge Notice.it gives a ref no. Vehicle registration make and model. Date of event 18/1/2017 Date issued 15/2/2017 telephone number for payment and date 15/2/2017. Parking charge amount due £100 etc. 2 photos only showing number plate and headlights as was completely dark at the time. Time in car park 0 hours 23 minutes Arrival time 18/1/2017 07:10:36 Departure time 18/1/2017 07:34:10

This was at the Mayflower Terminal short stay car park
It finishes saying as we don't know the drivers name or current postal address if you were not the driver at the time you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them.

My appeal to Parking Eye which was rejected without any comment on 27/2/2017 was as follows:
Firstly, I would like to state that I respectfully decline your request to be provided with the name and address of the driver, as is my right, and secondly; as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am challenging your parking notice on these grounds:

1. Your correspondence did not comply with the notice to keeper rules as set out in the protection of freedoms Act in that it was not sent within 15 days of the alleged parking offence

2. The land concerned is subject to Byelaws and, not being relevant land, keeper's liability under PoFA does not apply. I am sure you must be familiar with this as POPLA assesor Steve Macallan has very recently restated POPLA’s position on ABP Byelaws and what they consider not to be “relevant land” in an appeal to a PCN POPLA assessment and decision: 29/09/2016
Verification Code: 6062356150

3. The driver assures me that they had obtained verbal permission (were instructed by an ABP staff member), to utilise the short stay car park, assuring there would be no charge so long as they did not stay long, to avoid causing an obstruction whilst collecting passengers from a cruise ship..
Southampton By-Laws states:
Obstruction or interference on the dock estate
37. No person shall:
(a) except with the permission of ABP, deposit or place on any part of the dock estate any goods or park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, railway, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto; or
(b) without lawful authority, use, work, move or tamper with any plant, machinery, equipment or apparatus at the dock estate.

Link:

Clearly stating that one may park with permission of ABP regardless of obstruction.

4. Whilst in the car park it was very dark, as is evidenced by the number plate photos supplied on your correspondence, the driver was therefore unaware of any signs that stated any terms and conditions of the car park.

5. The images of the car were taken my an on-site APR surveillance camera that the driver was not made aware of. To the drivers knowledge there were no signs indicating that any data collecting surveillance was in operation which violates the requirements set down in the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice relating to signage. The BPA’s states the following:
21.1) You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

6. The cameras only indicate the time of arrival and departure from the car park, they do not accurately reflect the amount of time the driver had spent parked in a parking bay. Rather, it includes the time spent entering, driving around and waiting for a bay as well as the time spent stationary in a parking bay. The driver claims that due to limited parking and having to wait for a space to become available, the amount of minutes parked was considerably lower than what is quoted in your correspondence.

7.There were no signs to indicate the possibility of and individual incurring a £100 parking charge.

8. The parking Company [Parking Eye] has failed to provide any evidence that they in fact have the right to issue the Parking Charge Notice. It is not unreasonable to request evidence that they have acquired authorisation from the landowner to do so.

9. Further to that point, it would not be unreasonable to request the current contract with the landowner be provided as proof to ensure it does not include the known, and frequent clause that does not allow charges to be made to first time offenders who have accidentally broken the rules, as opposed to regular offenders who do so repeatedly.
I appeal your correspondence on all the above grounds.

Can people please advise how I turn this into the Appeal to POPLA. I live in Wales so have no means of getting any photos of the signs at the Mayflower Terminal. I and my wife were on the cruise ship Ventura when the car entered the car park so we we were not the driver. When we were picked up it was dark and one of the car occupants told us they were instructed by port authority staff to pull into the entrance opposite to wait for us to leave the ship. This they did not leaving the car or actually parking at all. When they saw is they just drove out and picked us up. They were unaware of any signage as it was dark and so did not know they were entering into a contract or that there was Some kind of free time or payment after free time etc. Parking Eye have not said whether the car park is free for a period or not and how long afterwards the car was there for. I don't know how I can find out without going all the way to Southampton.
Can anyone please help me make sense of this or should I just pay up for the peace of mind. Any help gratefully received.
Thanks
Steve

Fruitcake

You have done very well so far.

Have a look at post 3 of the NEWBIES thread where you will find a number of template appeal points, or links to template points you can use. The very long signage point is always a good one and you don't have to prove anything. If you say the signs were rubbish, parking lie have to prove otherwise.

The byelaws/not relevant land should be your number one point.

I have to go but others will be along with more help on the byelaws point soon.

Edna_Basher

Fruitcake wrote: »

You have done very well so far.

+1

The closing statement on PE's PCN that "we don't know the drivers name or current postal address if you were not the driver at the time you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them" suggests to me that this was the non-POFA version of their PCN (i.e. the one that makes no mention of POFA). If so, that gives you a second easy winning point at POPLA on top of the byelaws argument.

srvlee1

Thank you both for your comments I am grateful. I agree there is no mention of PoFA.
The full text at the bottom of the PCN says:
On the 18th January 2017 vehicle L66 SRV entered the Mayflower Terminal Short Stay, Southampton car park at 7:10:36 and departed at 7:34:10 on 18th January 2017.
The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by Parking Eye Ltd, and parking tariffs apply or a parking charge will be incurred, along with other terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park agree to be bound.
By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to Parking Eye Ltd (as the creditor) by the driver.

It ends with As we don't know the drivers name etc as per previous post.

There is also nothing about Notice to keeper or anything else. Does this make any difference?

Coupon-mad

Yes, please read post #3 of the NEWBIES thread where that 'non-POFA' (blank space at the bottom) type of PE PCN is shown in a link and it explains that PCN is a slam-dunk winning one at POPLA for a keeper appellant who never says who was driving.

Use the right appeal wording and you win. Templates are already in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

HTH - honestly, you win!!

srvlee1

That's great news. If I put together something based on what you suggest could someone please comment on it before I send it to POPLA so I don't mess it up.
Cheers
Steve

Coupon-mad

Absolutely we will, it's why we come here.

srvlee1

Hi Again
I have spent about a week now studying the various different forums and possible POPLA appeal template points and have put together the appeal as follows ready to send off. Could folk please go through it and see if I have done it right got the order right etc. and not made any grave errors Once I hear back I will amend it and send it off.
Many thanks again
SRVL1

Parking on Private Land Appeals
PO Box 70748
London
EC1P 1SN

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Reference number [xxxxxxx] Vehicle registration: [xxxxxxxx]

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye.
My appeal to Parking Eye was rejected by email with no explanation and they issued me POPLA code [xxxxxxxxx].

Declaration and grounds for appeal
Firstly, I declare that neither myself nor my wife (the only two people who live at our address), were the driver of the vehicle on the day in question and that we were in fact both onboard the cruise ship P&O Ventura when the car entered the car park at the time shown by the ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This can be verified with P&O as their ships security system clocks the time each passenger enters and leaves the ship.
Neither did my wife or I drive the vehicle at any time whilst it was in the Southampton Dock Complex.
Given this fact I respectfully declined ParkingEye’s request to provide the name and address of the driver, as is my right, and secondly; as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I challenged ParkingEyes’s Parking Charge Notice and I appeal to POPLA on the following grounds:-
1) The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or Notice to Keeper (NTK), if that is what it is intended to be, is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met, as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12.

ParkingEye have failed to fulfil those conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:- ’’

The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to
that address within the relevant period.”

(The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post).

Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:
’’ The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

(The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived almost 4 weeks after the alleged event and is actually dated thus).

….or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).

This means that ParkingEye have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used the alternative version of their template Parking Charge Notice. The one with a blank space near the bottom of page one which has no reference to keeper liability or the POFA.

The PCN also fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe the unpaid parking charges that they allege were unpaid at the car park.

7(2) states:
The notice must - (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the
specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose …and the other facts that made those charges payable’’ This NTK stated that either there was not appropriate parking time purchased or the vehicle remained longer than permitted.
‘
This NTK therefore has no facts and also fails to describe those parking charges which they contend remain unpaid by the driver.

So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was - and as stated above that person was not me or my wife.

So ParkingEye has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.

I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. 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 and they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me, or my wife.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

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 land concerned is subject to Byelaws and, not being relevant land, keeper's liability under PoFA does not apply. I am sure you must be familiar with this as POPLA assessor Steve Macallan has very recently restated POPLA’s position on ABP Byelaws and what they consider not to be “relevant land” in an appeal to a PCN POPLA assessment and decision: 29/09/2016 Verification Code: 6062356150. It is clear that the Mayflower Cruise Terminal area is not relevant land as defined in POFA. Parking Eye Ltd are well aware of this fact as POPLA ruled on 29/09/16, (as per the verification code above), that Southampton Town Quay (also part of the Associate British Ports Land) was not relevant land as defined under POFA 2012. The ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BYELAWS 2003 can be found here


LINK XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On page 20 is a map of the area covered by the byelaws and the Mayflower Cruise Terminal area including this car park area are clearly within this.

3. Instruction to stop in this area of port by APB staff member
The driver assures me that they had obtained verbal permission, (were in fact instructed by an ABP staff member in a high visibility jacket), to utilise this area of the docks (i.e now known by the driver to be a short stay car park), assuring there would be no charge so long as they did not stay long, to avoid causing an obstruction whilst collecting passengers, (myself and my wife), from a cruise ship.

Southampton By-Laws states:
Obstruction or interference on the dock estate
37. No person shall:
(a) except with the permission of ABP, deposit or place on any part of the dock estate any goods or park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, railway, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto; or
(b) without lawful authority, use, work, move or tamper with any plant, machinery, equipment or apparatus at the dock estate.

LINK XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Clearly stating that one may park with permission of ABP regardless of obstruction.

4. ParkingEye have provided no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator (ParkingEye) 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 code of practice (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
Please see section 7 below regarding the types of vehichle that appear to be allowed to wait in this area without charge. i.e. Taxis etc.
5. Driver was unaware of any signs that stated any terms and conditions of the car park
Whilst in the port area concerned it was very dark, as is evidenced by the number plate photos supplied on ParkingEyes’s Parking Charge Notice, the driver has told me they were therefore unaware of any signs that stated any terms and conditions of the car park. (See (8) below for further submission re signage to avoid duplication). The driver was in fact unaware that they had actually entered or left a controlled car park at all. As Keeper of the vehicle I was also totally unaware until the arrival of ParkingEye’s Parking Charge Notice almost a month later.

6. The images of the car were taken by an on-site APR surveillance camera that the driver was not made aware of.
The driver insisted that they saw no signs indicating that any data collecting surveillance was in operation which violates the requirements set down in the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice relating to signage. The BPA’s CoP states the following:
21.1) You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.



7. The cameras only indicate the time of arrival and departure from the car park, they do not accurately reflect the amount of time the driver had spent parked.
Rather, it includes the time spent entering, driving around and driving to the area where they were instructed to park by port officials. Which was near a line of Taxis. The driver claims that due to these limitations the actual amount of minutes the vehicle was stopped (parked) was considerably lower than what is quoted in ParkingEyes’s Parking Charge Notice. The driver did not leave the vehicle at any time and the vehicle engine was running. The driver did not think that an area including a row of taxis would be in a chargeable car park otherwise he would not have stopped there but would have driven away and returned later. Given BPA CoP 7.3c it would appear that Taxis have a right to park in this area without charge in order to collect passengers from the Mayflower Cruise Terminal. Given this it is even more imperative that ParkingEye produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner as if Taxis are given exemption from charges in his area this might also extend to private hire vehicles and other types of vehicle, eg mini busses and even private vehicles serving the Cruise Terminal.
8. Grace Period
The British Parking Association code of practice 13.2 states: You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. 13.4 states: You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. The BPA Code of Practice sets a MINIMUM ten minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period all told. For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes is in addition to the separate, first 'observation period' that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to read & observe the signage terms.

Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says:
LINK XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes 'observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.''
The ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice suggests a total time between the vehicle passing this areas cameras was 23 minutes. As ParkingEye have failed to explain whether there was a free period of parking allowed in this area and if so what length of time this was, nor what should have happened if this was not the case and how much of a charge was actually owed on the day, (if indeed there was any), it is difficult to know. If however there were for instance a free period of any length of time then that added to the suggested grace period would be unlikely to be longer than 23 minutes. As I live in Wales I have no way of finding out.

CONTINUED BELOW

srvlee1

9. There were no visible signs to indicate the possibility of an individual incurring a £100 parking charge for following the port staff instructions and entering this area because it was dark.
So even if ParkingEye provide evidence that such signs exist they are not prominent clear or legible in the dark.
In the dark 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.

Because of this 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:

LNK

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:

LINK

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 in the dark..

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, especially as it was dark.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.2016, 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:

LINK

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

LINK

''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:

LINK
''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 in the dark.

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:

LINK
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 ie in the dark) 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 in the dark, 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.
END
Signed
XXXXXXXXXXXX
14/3/2017

Fruitcake

It looks good to me apart from formatting that I am sure you will sort out for the real thing.

Embed images rather than provide links wherever possible as this forces the assessor to actually look at them.

Select other on the PoPLA website and submit it as a pdf. Put See attached pdf appeal or similar in the text box as there is a 2k character limit.

Coupon-mad

Perfect example of a PE appeal about their 'blank space' PCN version with no reference to keeper liability or the POFA. Nice work!