ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice

Djubb78

I've received a parking charge notice today for £100 from ParkingEye. We had been on holiday in Weymouth, so can't return to the car park to gather evidence to help build a case.

The date of event: 14/04/2017
Date pcn issued: 25/04/2017

Car park: Weymouth Old Town (East) DT4 8US

Time in car park: 1 hour 11 minutes
Arrival time: 14/04/2017 10:53:02
Departure time: 14/07/2017 12:04:05

I have the driver's parking ticket/receipt which states:

Issued: Fri 14 Apr 2017 10:55
Paid £1.20
Time and date expiry time:
11:55 14 Apr 17

Can't I challenge this under the grace period rule which allows a minimum of 10 minutes from the expiry time on my ticket?

What should I write when I respond to ParkingEye?

Any help is greatly appreciated

Coupon-mad

Can't I challenge this under the grace period rule which allows a minimum of 10 minutes from the expiry time on my ticket?

Yes of course - and bung in all the recent stuff found here about Kelvin Reynolds' BPA article and just as importantly, about the minutes of the Board meeting in 2015 where the BPA resolved to set the minumum at least ELEVEN minutes after paid for time (on top of the arrival time which Kelvin R confirmed for the BPA, is a separate set of minutes...observation time to read the signs).

PE are trying it on again.

Your example is SHOCKING (a scam) but this is Weymouth Old Town, a cash cow (Google it with the words 'parking eye')!

Djubb78

Thanks for your reply coupon-mad

I'm completely new to using forums, where/how do I find the information you've referred to regarding The Kelvin Reynolds BPA article and minutes of boarding from 2015 please?

Is this template the right one to use? I've included that I have a copy of the driver's parking ticket, is this the right thing to do?

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. *************

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

The parking charge notice also ignores the driver's right to a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes from the expiry time on the parking receipt.

In order to resolve the dispute I attach a copy of the driver's parking receipt that day.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

My name and address here

Coupon-mad

I'm completely new to using forums, where/how do I find the information you've referred to regarding The I'm completely new to using forums, where/how do I find the information you've referred to regarding The Kelvin Reynolds BPA article and minutes of boarding from 2015 please?

I won't post links because I strongly believe NEWBIES will be pleasantly surprised when they learn to search the forum and find the info perfect for their case! So search this forum board (not the whole of MSE, NOT THE TOP RIGHT BOX), for:

'Kelvin Reynolds'

and separately,

'Board eleven'

...changing the default search to 'show POSTS' not the default 'show threads'. You will find the right drop-down search box level with the 'new thread' button you used before, immediately above the thread list on page one of this parking board, on the right. Not on this page, not at the top of the entire page either.

HTH

Djubb78

I submitted the following appeal to ParkingEye

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. *****/*****

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.!Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

Parking Eye have also failed to observe and follow the BPA’s code of practice October 2015 regarding grace periods which states:

13.2 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 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.

Source: BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice version 6 – October 2015

Also Henry Michael Greenslade the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator wrote in his third annual report 2015:

“Just as there may appropriately be a grace period at the end of the parking session there must also be a reasonable period before it is deemed to commence.”

In order to resolve the dispute I attach a copy of the driver's parking receipt that day.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.!

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.!

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,


As I expected ParkingEye have replied advising my appeal has been unsuccessful. And that their records show that insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.

They have provided me with a POPLA Ref:

Coupon-mad

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72564627#post72564627

Same stage.

Djubb78

Here is my first draft POPLA appeal:

POPLA Ref: **********

I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from ParkingEye at Weymouth Old Town (East) DT4 8US Car Park.

To protect the driver, they have not been named.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
1. Insufficient grace period!
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
3. Inadequate signage

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

This matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere ELEVEN minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The paid for parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the parking ticket was purchased or at which it expired.!

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "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." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“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.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

(Link here)

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “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.”

During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.!

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

(Link here)

The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 10:53 and driving out at 12:04 on the same date. The driver has provided a copy of their parking receipt, which was issued at 10:55 and expired at 11:55 on the same day. In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”

(Copy of drivers parking receipt attached here)

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the car park exceeded the paid period by only 11 minutes, a sum of 2 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 9 minutes after the parking period had ended.

Transport chiefs at Weymouth and Portland Borough Council have criticised ParkingEye's actions in issuing parking charge notices for Weymouth Old Town East car park. A newspaper article showing that local Councillors are aware of the issue since 2011 due to the number of complaints:

''Coun Christine James, member for transport and infrastructure, said the council has tried unsuccessfully to arrange a meeting with the company.

She said: “It’s been going on since about April {2011}...We have tried to speak to them and they have offered to put up more signs but I can’t see what difference that will make. The charges if you go over are astronomical. They are claiming they will give a 10-minute grace period but it doesn’t seem to be happening.''

(Link here)

2. 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 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.

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.!

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.!

''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.''

''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.!

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.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully


Would really appreciate any feedback on anything that might need changing, adding or improving.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me, all relevant and you've included all the suggested ammo about grace periods.

Djubb78

Thanks Coupon-Mad.

I've now submitted my appeal to POPLA.

Djubb78

I've had the following evidence from ParkingEye.

Date/Time In 14/04/2017 10:53:02
Date/Time Out 14/04/2017 12:04:05
Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
Time In Car Park 1 hours 11 minutes 3 seconds
Time Paid For 1 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
Payment Options Payment Machines
Number of Paid Parking
Machines
2
History
14/04/2017 Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
24/04/2017 Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
25/04/2017 DVLA response received - Success
25/04/2017 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
30/04/2017
11/05/2017
Email response sent to the motorist advising that ParkingEye have received their
appeal and they will receive a response within 28 days.
Website appeal processed, please see section E
Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system
(Evidence G)
11/05/2017 Letter sent to motorist advising appeal unsuccessful as insufficient parking was
purchased on the date of event & Letter sent to motorist providing information
confirming the Parking Charge is fair and reasonable and also includes FAQs. – POPLA
reference and details provided.
26/05/2017 Letter sent to motorist advising ParkingEye reject all invoices for payment or
appeal
Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). There are 11 signs, placed at the
entrance, exit & throughout the site stating the terms and conditions.
Evidence G
System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.
Please find enclosed a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner showing that on the date of the
parking event ParkingEye had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence
of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be
enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.
Further Information
ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA)
regulations.
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised
in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on yellow. There is
sufficient ambient lighting on site and we have highlighted some of the lighting poles within the images.
(Enclosed)
There are also signs at the entrance to the car park which adjoin an illuminated public road and so we can
confirm that there is sufficient ambient lighting at this site.
As the images show, the vehicle did not have its headlights on when entering the car park. We contend that
there was clearly enough daylight for the motorist to be confident driving without the use of headlights, and
therefore the signage would have been fully visible. (We enclose images of the signage in situ in the car park.
We also include a signage plan to demonstrate the prevalence of the signs).
Grace period
ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and
establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.
There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All
grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice.

Car Park Weymouth Old Town (East) DT4 8US
In Date/Time 14/04/2017 10:53:02
Out Date/Time 14/04/2017 12:04:05
Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes
Time In Car Park 1 hours 11 minutes
Time Paid For 1 hours 0 minutes

There's also a number of photo's of signage and a car park signage layout plan, which I don't seem to be able to copy and paste in here.

I've worked on some comments to reply to this evidence which I'll include separately

Djubb78

Here is what I was planning to send as my comments. Would appreciate people's thoughts?

I refer to my appeal point regarding grace periods:

'It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the car park exceeded the paid period by only 11 minutes, a sum of 2 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 9 minutes after the parking period had ended.'

and would like to use ParkingEye's own response to evidence a parking charge notice should not have been issued. ParkingEye state:

'ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.

There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice.'

Identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request. As the driver purchased a valid parking ticket and exited the car park within the minimum grace period allowed after the expiry time of that parking ticket, there was no breach of terms and conditions. Therefore ParkingEye had no reasonable cause (i.e. breach of parking regulations) to obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA, which is a data protection act breach.

System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request (at some point between 14/04/2017 and 24/04/2017) – What check was carried out to identify alleged breach of terms and conditions? As ParkingEye history indicates Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system was only carried out on 11/05/2017.

History timeline refers to ParkingEye sending email or letters to Motorist, this is inaccurate as ParkingEye only have registered keepers details.

Rules and conditions – ParkingEye state this site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage(enclosed). There are 11 signs, placed at the entrance, exit and throughout the site stating the terms and conditions. As per my appeal I believe ParkingEye's signs fail the test of 'Large Lettering' and prominence. Are obscure, in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. I would like to use ParkingEye's car park signage layout plan and photo's of signage to help evidence this point.

Sign Type 1 – Is the only sign displayed outside the entrance to this car park. It's also the only sign on a white background, when all the other signs inside the car park are black text on a yellow background. The only text on this sign that is in black states 'Tariff payable at machine only' The text below 'This car park is private property, see signage in car park for terms and conditions' is in white and a much smaller size font. This sign is also mounted to the top of a pole at a height that would be above a driver's eyeline from a driving position. All of these points make this sign difficult for someone to notice or read. This sign even if noticed by a driver gives them no option but to enter the car park to read the terms and conditions displayed on signage inside, before being able to make a decision whether to park or leave.

Sign Type 2 - Four are placed on the inside of each of the low exterior walls of the car park. All of the font is very small and the signs would be completely obscured by a car parked in the parking bay directly in front of the sign. One sign is installed on existing lighting column, but with no indication at what height and no photo to show this particular sign institute. I question why ParkingEye have not provided a photo of this particular sign to evidence it is clear and readable to a driver.

Sign Type 3 – The only real prominent sign is installed between the car parks 2 payment machines. This sign clearly states the following information which makes up the terms and conditions
1. This is a Pay & Display car park
2. Parking Tariff
3. Maximum stay of 24 hours
4. Please enter the full, correct vehicle registration into the Pay & Display machine when purchasing a ticket.
5. Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
6. Park only within marked bays
7. Blue badge holders only in marked bays – tariffs apply
8. Strictly no parking on double yellow lines

Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100

The driver complied with these terms and conditions, therefore no parking charge notice should have been issued.

The incredibly small print below the blue box icons is completely unreadable to drivers and whatever it contains cannot be considered to be part of the terms and conditions of parking.

Sign type 4 - Three are placed on the inside of three of the low exterior walls of the car park. All of the font is quite small and the signs would be completely obscured by a car parked in the parking bay directly in front of the sign. One is placed on a pole at about waist height which is out of the drivers eyeline between the car parks 2 payments machines.

The sign on page 38 of ParkingEye's evidence which states:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION Please ensure you purchase a pay and display ticket to cover the full period of time that your vehicle is on site (from time of entry to time of exit)

This sign is not shown on ParkingEye's own Car park signage layout plan as being installed at the Weymouth Old Town (East) car park, and therefore must be disregarded from the evidence. I suspect it has deliberately been included by ParkingEye in an attempt to falsely support their parking charge notice. This sign would not however waive a drivers statutory right to a minimum 10 minute grace period both before purchasing and after expiry of a free or paid parking period.

All of ParkingEye's signs state that the Car Park is monitored by ANPR systems, but no enforced by ANPR systems. Signs 2 and 3 state this car park is a Pay and Display car park, which suggests enforcement by a parking attendant, which isn't the case.

The witness statement should be disregarded from ParkingEye's evidence as it states:

'The site is Weymouth Old Town (West)'

And is not relevant to this parking charge notice issued for Weymouth Old Town (East).

Thanks for your help