PCN Lee Valley Velopark - Help please

mark306 · 4 August 2017 at 12:59PM

So I've dropped the 'Grace periods' point as already discussed.
I've now added a section for relevant land and will add the additional blurb as an appendix. How does this appeal look now? (I have until Monday to submit it)

Parking on Private Land Appeals
PO Box 1270
WARRINGTON
WA4 9RL

Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Reference number [xxxxxxx] Vehicle registration: [xxxxxxxx]
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from Parking Eye.
My appeal to Parking Eye was rejected and they gave me POPLA code [xxxxxxxxx].
The basis of my appeal is:

1) Parking Eye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions 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.

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. Parking Eye have not demonstrated that they had authority to issue parking notices for this site on the date that the PCN was given, and they have not provided a copy of the contract which would allow me to determine my liability and/or to request cancellation of the charge. Despite my request, Parking Eye have not provided me with a copy of the contract with the landowner or on site businesses, as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

I do not believe that the contract allows Parking Eye to charge paying visitors £100 for a system or keypad error. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.

2) Parking Eye has given me no information about their policy with the landowner to cancel such a charge.
Parking Eye do not own the car park and has not supplied any information about their policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. This is required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and Parking Eye have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

3) The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces
The signs and the machine tariff board were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of ‘plain intelligible language’, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

68 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.
It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer with no tariff lists which is the primary prominent information on the board. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park:-
imgur.com/a/AkMCN

The terms appear to be displayed inadequately at the machine, where only the tariffs are in comparatively large font. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording of the terms, which seem to be no larger than .40 font size. As evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:-
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. However, if you…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.''

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the parking terms should have been simpler and effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear, concise and prominent in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'.
I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when parked. 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.

4) Land with bye laws is not considered ‘relevant land’

Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:

“(1) This schedule applies where –
(a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

Since byelaws apply to the velopark in the Lee Valley Regional Park, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Lee Valley Regional Park that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Lee Valley Regional Park, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore APCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

mark306 · 6 August 2017 at 11:41AM

Appeal submitted as I didn't want to miss the deadline.

mark306 · 16 August 2017 at 9:41PM

Well I had some good news today. ParkingEye cancelled my ticket! (Thanks to everyone who replied and in particular to Coupon-mad who went beyond the call of duty!)