Parking Eye Penalty Notice Charge - Canvey Island Seafront

Umkomaas

I now have to pull my finger out and do this laborious appeal thing.

Trust me, once you find (more or less) the right one, it's pretty much a copy and paste job. You're not typing your drafts out - are you?

FeelingLighterAlready

No I actually copied and pasted the above! It's just finding the right one...and because I don't know what exactly the right one is it's frustrating me as I don't usually like to ask for help lol. Prefer just to get things done and ticked off my to do list. I want to make sure it's the right one! ���� :-)

The_Deep

I know that it seems an immense amount of work to save a few quid, but if you have the time, it is time well spent.

This is an unregulated consumer scam, affecting the poor, the stupid, and the vulnerable the most. The more we put obstacles in the way of PPCs. the more it costs them, and the fewer less abled get stung.

It is also a useful skill to have acquired.

Coupon-mad

FeelingLighterAlready wrote: »

No I actually copied and pasted the above! It's just finding the right one...and because I don't know what exactly the right one is it's frustrating me as I don't usually like to ask for help lol. Prefer just to get things done and ticked off my to do list. I want to make sure it's the right one! ���� :-)

Just use that old Canvey one (to make sure the bit about the car being shown OUTSIDE the barriers is in there) and then compare it to the template POPLA appeal wording in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, and update your draft, using the templates.

For example, where the old Canvey one talks about 'no landowner authority' replace the old version with the newer template from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, because it's more relevant now.

FeelingLighterAlready

Thank you sooooo much Coupon Mad and everybody else - it is so appreciated! Also quick question but when selecting the boxes on the POPLA website for reasons to appeal, do I select the unclear signage box or does it matter?

FeelingLighterAlready

Ok I have just gone through the templates and amended as you suggested Coupon Mad - could you please doublecheck this is ok for me to now submit to POPLA?

"Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code ***********
POPLA Code: ************

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye on [ ] at [ ], at Seafront, Canvey Island Car Park. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
3) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed.
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate - evidence does not discount two visits shown as one.



1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
As this was a Pay/Display car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed!

I can see from the limited information before me in the NTK, only that the car stayed for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was 'either/or' an overstay or failure to pay. This does not create any certainty of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder what the hourly rate tariff even was and whether the driver paid nothing, or paid too little, or paid only for half an hour or an hour, or paid in full but put in the wrong car registration, or some other event. This Operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect/record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able - and indeed are required under the POFA - to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued.

These are the omissions:

''9(2)The notice must— (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable; (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid...'

The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to ParkingEye.

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

3) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver.

The only signs are up on poles, away from the Pay & Display machine, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. Any upright signs were not so prominent among all the other signage on site that they were ever seen by the occupants of the car. I believe that ParkingEye place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a torch, to try to read them. Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the ParkingEye signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this busy customer car park. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day without photoshopping or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among a myriad of other information bombarding a customer.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

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.


4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate, and there is no evidence that this was just one visit ParkingEye's evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event.

As keeper I cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out to get change before returning (and of course the ANPR cameras show only the first and last visits). The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.
b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Even if an Operator shows a list with 'no record' of that car registration in between the times, this would not discount the 'double visit' possibility as it is well known that car registrations are completely missed when a vehicle is followed closely by a higher vehicle, or by a temporary interruption in the camera recording. Or even an item temporarily obscuring the camera from picking up one car registration, such as a passing bird or wind-blown carrier bag or leaves appearing in front of the camera, even for moments, would stop a record appearing of a car leaving in between the stated times. I put the Operator to strict proof to the contrary. All camera records could be checked and this Operator would still be unable to refute the 'double visit' possibility, since they don't bother to record continuous footage, this not being CCTV. If I am wrong then they must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no more entries or exits that day by this car.

Further, this Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored and used. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and how the data will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance. Indeed, I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times and also where the car is being shown OUTSIDEW the barriers.

This concludes my POPLA appeal"

Fruitcake

I have only skim read your draft, but I can't see any mention that the car may never have actually entered the car park at all if the images only show the car outside the car park barriers

FeelingLighterAlready

Hi Fruitcake,

There are no barriers in the images on the PCN that Parking Eye have sent me...there are two picturse, the first one showing the front of my car and the second showing the back...as far as I recall there were no barriers to get in or out of this car park?

Fruitcake

FeelingLighterAlready wrote: »

Hi Fruitcake,

There are no barriers in the images on the PCN that Parking Eye have sent me...there are two picturse, the first one showing the front of my car and the second showing the back...as far as I recall there were no barriers to get in or out of this car park?

Ah, OK. Are you sure the vehicle was actually inside the boundary of the car park when the images were taken. We have seen a few parking scammers who point cameras at the entrance such that a vehicle image is captured before it leaves the public highway, thus there is no proof that the vehicle entered the car park at all.

FeelingLighterAlready

honestly I dont know for sure?? It is not very clear on the pictures, in my opinion....