Popla appeal

pogofish

Are those reg and reference numbers in the OP genuine - if so, DELETE THEM NOW!

PPCs do trawl these forums to try and find info they can use against people who come here for help!

Coupon-mad

Rebecca1811 wrote: »

When I click to view it says download and then say it doesn't support the software maybe it's my iPad...
Do you think I should go ahead with the last appeal I sent you.

No idea what you are saying, there is nothing to 'download' on the forum.

I do hope you are not trying to use the MSE 'appeal a private parking ticket' (bad) templates from the article by the MSE website itself? That's NOT where we told you to look. Stay on this board, this forum.

All you need to do is go to the NEWBIES thread near the top of today's threads...post #3 of it has URL links. Nothing to download at all.

Rebecca1811

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: Gemini Parking Solutions, parking charge notice number: ____________
Vehicle registration number: ____________

POPLA Reference number: ____________


1. The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Gemini Parking Solutions claims that the charge is for ‘failure to comply’ with its ‘terms of parking’ and that the vehicle was ‘in breach’, so this operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park is a free car park that has no charging facilities whatsoever.

Therefore, Gemini Parking Solutions cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back-office functions, debt collection, etc., cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. Gemini Parking Solutions would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

The charge of £100, being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms, namely ‘parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit’, is disproportionately high. Consequently I contend and the BPA code of practice states, a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd stated: ‘the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed... that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.’

The case at hand involves a private parking area for visitors. The vehicle was parked in an allocated visitor’s bay, which incurs no fees for parking at any point. Therefore, there is no loss to anyone. As the charge in this case is the same lump sum charged for any alleged ‘breach’ (irrespective of whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or 24 hours or had received permission from the individual entitled to authorise parking in this parking bay, etc.), it is clear the charge is a punitive measure and no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre-estimate of loss in this case.

In addition, POPLA Assessor Christopher Adamson stated in June 2014 upon seeing Vehicle Control Services’ effort at a loss statement – likely to be broadly similar to any effort made by Gemini Parking Solutions – that:

‘I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach.’

In another upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs that were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said:

‘the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.’

This case is the same and Gemini Parking Solutions is at best an agent, with a bare contractor’s license to put up signage and ‘issue tickets’. The vehicle was clearly parked in a visitors bay and it is therefore clear that this parking charge is punitive and no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case. Therefore, I require the operator to submit a full breakdown of its genuine pre-estimate of loss to show how the loss is calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can neither be commercially justified nor proved to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. No contract exists with landowner to pursue charges
The operator does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. It owns neither proprietary nor agency rights and holds no title or share of the land. I do not believe that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in its own name as creditor. I believe that at best it may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that it provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

In order to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, this contract must specifically grant the operator the right to pursue parking charges in its own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

a) Some parking companies have provided ‘witness statements’ instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that the Landowner employs them. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the operator, which would obviously affect any ‘loss’ calculations. Furthermore, it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practice to allow the operator to pursue charges in its own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was ‘not valid evidence’. If Gemini Parking Solutions provides a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLAshould rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency.

Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between the operator and the Landowner containing nothing that Gemini Parking Solutions can lawfully use in its own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

3. Unreasonable/Unfair Contract Terms.
There is no contract between Gemini Parking Solutions and I but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. According to the Office of Fair Trading, Guidance re Unfair Contract Terms:

‘It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...’

I believe Gemini Parking Solutions is in breach of the Unfair Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR):

Schedule 2, paragraph 1:
...terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect of:
(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

Unfair Terms
5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

This is confirmed in the Office of Fair Trading’s extensive guidance on the UTCCRs 1999. The guidance includes the following advice:

‘The Regulations are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. If a term has the effect of an unfair penalty, it will be regarded as such, and not as a core term. Therefore a penalty cannot be made fair by transforming it into a provision requiring payment of a fee for exercising a contractual option.

‘The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term, or which purports to define what the consumer is buying, will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.’

This charge is not exempt from the test of fairness then. It represents an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’ I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. This charge caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, which renders the terms unenforceable. It's clearly a penalty and there is no case law to make such a charge commercially justifiable against a consumer of lesser bargaining power. By contrast, there is plenty of case law to support the UTCCRs and evidence that points to this charge being a penalty, and penalty clauses are unrecoverable in consumer contracts. For example, in Lordsvale Finance Plc v. Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, 762G, it was stated that:

‘whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach. That the contractual function is deterrent rather than compensatory can be deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred.’

This statement has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] IRLR 946. Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket.

4. Unclear and non-compliant signage not forming a contract
There are no clear sings in the parking area near the space the vehicle was photographed in. I believe that Gemini Parking Solutions places its signs so high or low that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car to try to read them. Any photographs supplied by the operator to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera and flash and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require Gemini Parking Solutions to state the height of each sign in its response and to show contemporaneous photographic evidence of these signs in the dark without the aid of flash photography. The operator also needs to show evidence in the way of a signage map on this point – specifically showing the location of the signs and whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed do not alter the contract, which must be shown in full at the entrance.

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 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. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed to and from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third-party ‘charge’ foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not ‘customers’ of Gemini Parking Solutions but visitors of the very buildings that are home to these parking spaces; they are not expecting to read a contract when they park to visit the stores. I contend the extortionate charge was not ‘drawn to his attention in the most explicit way’ (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal):

‘The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling.’



As per the above points, Gemini Parking Solutions’ charge has no legal basis and I ask that the assessor nullify the parking charge notice issued by Gemini Parking Solutions. The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal be adjourned pending the Beavis case.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Rebecca1811

I found this last template from a search of chase farm hospital popla appeal.
I have no idea what I'm doing wrong it definitely says download Dropbox and then says not supported ��

Fruitcake

That appeal in post 14 is two years out of date and absolutely of no use.

Your appeal points should include Inadequate Signage, Not the Landowner, No Sanding to bring charges in their own name, and anything else relevant such as Grace Periods, or not mentioning what ANPR images will be used for. Anything and everything relevant should be included.

Have you found the Sticky thread for NEWBIES, because that appeal is not in it.

Near the top right corner of this thread is a box that says Forum Jump. Click on the Go button and it will take you to the main page of this parking forum. It's the same page where you started this thread.

Go to the thread near the top that says, NEWBIES, Parking ticket, new or old, please read these FAQs first. Post 3 of that thread has several template appeal pojnts. All you do is click on each link in turn and pick out the ones that are relevant.

If anything mentioning Dropbox appears, you are in the wrong place. They are simply links to the posts or threads.

Do not submit anything until it has been breathed on by the regular here as it is obvious you are struggling.

Coupon-mad

Rebecca1811 wrote: »

I found this last template from a search of chase farm hospital popla appeal.
I have no idea what I'm doing wrong it definitely says download Dropbox and then says not supported ��

None of the POPLA templates are in Dropbox. You are clicking on the wrong link, why not get someone else to read post #3 of the NEWBIES thread if you appear to be missing it, maybe you need a fresh pair of eyes to find you the simple links.

Throw that old draft in the bin, unless you want to lose. It is far too old.

Rebecca1811

Definitely struggling with only 5 days left too !!

Rebecca1811

Ok so here goes, am I in the right track yet ?
I've deleted all the links included it won't allow me to post them...


Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: Gemini Parking Solutions, parking charge notice number: ____________
Vehicle registration number: ____________

POPLA Reference number: ____________

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.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



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

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



''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:

''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.



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

Redx

without referring to content , a "standard" popla appeal will be bullet pointed in a small menu at the beginning , then each point is fleshed out in the paragraphs below

so it may say

1) no landowner contract
2) not POFA2012 compliant
3) Poor and inadequate signage

etc

with the larger paragraphs explaining each bullet point in detail below

so I am at a loss as to why yours doesnt

this is what one usually looks like

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5673667

as for the IPAD questions , only somebody with an IPAD and doing these tasks could answer you, which hasnt happened

the vast majority of us doing this are using windows based laptops which is what we would recommend that you use for viewing and editing etc

but this forum isnt about laptops, ipads and OS questions , so I will just say

please use a windows based pc or laptop , because all the advice you have been given works when using that apparatus

as for your appeal, I suggest you bullet point it for clarity, not just for us or yourself , but for the POPLA assessors who will probably use laptops running windows too

and as you say , you cannot use the links , but any popla appeal should have any references etc embedded into it as a pdf , not LIVE external links

hope this helps

Rebecca1811

Is the content ok though? I've edited hopefully this is more suitable?



Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: Gemini Parking Solutions, parking charge notice number: ____________
Vehicle registration number: ____________

POPLA Reference number: ____________

1. Poor and inadequate signage
2. No evidence of landowner Authority


1.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 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.

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