Wing parking appeal

Rebecca1811

Hi everyone, I need some help with a ticket from wing parking.

I received a ticket for not displaying a valid permit so I appealed to them and they declined asking me to appeal to the council is this correct? It's council property but managed by wing who is private as far as I'm aware.

I appealed to them for the following reasons
Reason For Appeal
I'm extremely sorry I hadn't parked correctly my nan lives in hanmer walk where I received the ticket I was previously parked in our allocated bay no. which we hold a permit for various cars, I had been visiting my nan as she hadn't been well, I left at approx 11:45ami reversed out of bay and went to turn around as I had gone to drive off I had become extremely dizzy and couldn't see infront of me I just pulled into the nearest bay as it was unsafe for me to drive as I was in no state I was helped out of the car by a neighbour and taken to my nans, nobody had a licence to move the car from the bay it was in. I'm extremely sorry it's my first ever ticket and I would have no way parked incorrectly by choice I hope you can understand why as it was extremely unsafe to drive whilst not being able to see or concentrate on the road. I'm been under a lot of strain with family issues and it has been a real wake up for me as it could have ended a lot worse.


There response is declining and then to pay or re appeal as follows
if you are dissatisfied with the facts outlined in the reply, you also have the option of taking your complaint further, to Stage 2, by writing directly to our clients within 14 days. If you wish to make a Stage 2 appeal, please address your correspondence to:
Islington Council Estate Parking Section PO Box 70889 Islington
London
N1P 1GB
Alternatively you may email estate.parking.section@islington.gov.uk
The Stage 2 appeal must be made within 14 days of the date of this reply and must include:
* Your name and address 

* The registration number of your vehicle 

* The date and exact location of the incident 

* Why you feel that the PCN should be cancelled 
If you do not submit a Stage 2 appeal with 14 days, or make payment of the charge within 28 days, then the matter will be passed for further debt recovery action to recover the charge and you may incur additional charges. 



Do I need to pay them.....?

pogofish

As this is Wing acting for a council, its a legit ticket - so you would be best to take this over to the PEPIPOO forum.

Sign-up with anything other than a hotmail address, read the intro guides before posting and be ready to provide all the info they ask for (personal details redacted of course) and you will get the best help.

Rebecca1811

Is that a different site?

pappa_golf

pogofish wrote: »

As this is Wing acting for a council, its a legit ticket - so you would be best to take this over to the PEPIPOO forum.

Sign-up with anything other than a hotmail address, read the intro guides before posting and be ready to provide all the info they ask for (personal details redacted of course) and you will get the best help.

umm , no its not a coiunsil ticket its a ptrivate one , wing have a funny settup , you appeal to them , then the counsil then finally POPLa

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203646941-Wing-Parking-Ltd

pogofish

ETA - Good advice above

Yes - but many of the main posters here also help-out there and PEPIPOO is the place with the best experience of legit/council tickets.

pappa_golf

its not a counsil ticket!! its a private parking Co managing land for the counsil , relevent land anyone?

Redx

use the search word ALMO on here to see other threads about this arms length parking scheme that involve wing parking as well as council property

Rebecca1811

I have read a few threads all stating I need to follow the process to get to popla appeal.

Should I write my appeal as I would write to popla, as. In using the following points as the actual mitigating circumstances didn't seem to bother them.



1. Poor and inadequate signage
2. No evidence of landowner Authority
3. Amount demanded is a penalty.


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

3.Amount demanded is a penalty

Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.