We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parking Eye ticket - Tower Road, Newquay, PE rejected appeal - need POPLA help.
Options
kentgti
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi,
We parked at Tower Road car park, Newquay on 27th June on our recent holiday. 5 hours parking was paid for, fine is for overstaying 16 minutes.. I'm not that familiar with Parking Eye & charges from the second we entered, as we don't have these locally.. I've since seen hundreds of parking eye threads, mainly this car park.
Anyway, our appeal to Parking Eye has been rejected as most seem to be, so now have our POPLA reference. I'm mainly thinking of going in based on the grounds of a grace period, we had to find a space, then set up an app on our phone to do mobile payment as we didn't have the £7 odd in change the parking cost anyway, so 16 minutes for 5 hours seems reasonable to me.
I've done some reading on here on other successful appeals, here's what I have so far (only slightly edited from someone else's appeal earlier this month), our appeal to POPLA deadline is 8th August.
I can only see information about a grace period from BPA of 10/11 minutes at the end of a stay, anyone have anything for additional time before hand?
Would really appreciate any help on this, or if anyone can recommend anything I should add or change!
Thankyou.
See below:
I am writing to challenge a parking charge notice received for parking at the Tower Road, Newquay car park on 27/06/2017. This car park is run by ParkingEye Ltd.
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 16 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.”’
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.”
The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 11:30 and driving out at 16:46 on the 27/06/17. In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”
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 carpark exceeded the paid period by only 16 minutes, a sum of 6 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 10 minutes after the parking period had ended.
By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable, along with the time in registering our details and downloading a mobile app mentioned on the side of the parking machine to purchase a parking ticket. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 10/11 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.
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.
We parked at Tower Road car park, Newquay on 27th June on our recent holiday. 5 hours parking was paid for, fine is for overstaying 16 minutes.. I'm not that familiar with Parking Eye & charges from the second we entered, as we don't have these locally.. I've since seen hundreds of parking eye threads, mainly this car park.
Anyway, our appeal to Parking Eye has been rejected as most seem to be, so now have our POPLA reference. I'm mainly thinking of going in based on the grounds of a grace period, we had to find a space, then set up an app on our phone to do mobile payment as we didn't have the £7 odd in change the parking cost anyway, so 16 minutes for 5 hours seems reasonable to me.
I've done some reading on here on other successful appeals, here's what I have so far (only slightly edited from someone else's appeal earlier this month), our appeal to POPLA deadline is 8th August.
I can only see information about a grace period from BPA of 10/11 minutes at the end of a stay, anyone have anything for additional time before hand?
Would really appreciate any help on this, or if anyone can recommend anything I should add or change!
Thankyou.
See below:
I am writing to challenge a parking charge notice received for parking at the Tower Road, Newquay car park on 27/06/2017. This car park is run by ParkingEye Ltd.
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 16 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.”’
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.”
The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 11:30 and driving out at 16:46 on the 27/06/17. In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”
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 carpark exceeded the paid period by only 16 minutes, a sum of 6 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 10 minutes after the parking period had ended.
By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable, along with the time in registering our details and downloading a mobile app mentioned on the side of the parking machine to purchase a parking ticket. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 10/11 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.
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.
0
Comments
-
no PPC tells us the "official" grace period beforehand , but its generally accepted that if there are spaces available and no queues then between 5 and 10 minutes beforehand , plus over 10 minutes (so 11 or more minutes) after the parking period has finished
this gives a grand total of say 21 minutes that could be deemed "reasonable"0 -
Was the PCN received by day 15? Just wondering if you can add 'no keeper liability'.
And in the grace period section, explain why this tourist car park and this situation at this time of year, was one where it takes longer to driver in and out, find a space and then pay, and again being held up upon leaving in the queue onto the main road.
You can find that wording by searching 'Tower Road POPLA main road surfboards busy' (or similar). Lay it on really think abut the time it takes either side of paid-for time at THIS car park, and why.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hey, it arrived within a week if I remember correctly. I'll take a look at that & add it on, do you think all else is fine or any other points I should argue, or even remove?
Thankyou0 -
Right I've added in some basic information about it being a notoriously busy carpark at a tourist destination, our vehicle once actually parked, would have been for or less than the amount of time we paid for on our ticket.. etc etc.
I was unable to find the surf example, no matter what combinations I tried and read through a fair amount.
My only concerns are, that POPLA specifically mentions using templated appeals as a ground for rejection & also, what section should I tick?
I was not improperly parked, or other grounds for appeal? I notice they said using 'other' had a less success rate?
Thanks, hopefully I'll get this sent off today!0 -
Sorry to bump, can anyone please help with the last question.. I'm really hoping to get this off so it's done with.
I just don't want it going incorrectly.
Thanks!0 -
always , always ALWAYS choose other and upload the appeal as a pdf
its that simple !!!
nobody here cares what their website says about template appeals or choosing OTHER , you do it regardless0 -
Right ok, I'll do that then. Would you say I'm all set to go, I wasn't going to upload the photos & timestamps from Parking Eye as didn't see necessary, they know I paid 5 hours and overstayed 16, so just attach my appeal and PDF and send?
Thanks again!0 -
on a skim read it seems reasonable (you cannot expect members to spend time reading thousands of words in a popla appeal for free)
it has the 3 main points , especially grace periods which feature heavily in your facts about this, a ticket was purchased
I cannot see any paragraph about it not being the same as BEAVIS , and as that was PE on a free car park and an overstay, its important to show why this is not the same in case they play the BEAVIS card
so I would copy and paste another section in about this from other appeals , so the popla assessor doesnt get led up the BEAVIS garden path
plus anything about NTK failures or errors, POFA2012 failures and any other BPA CoP failures
PE should submit their own evidence pack, so unless you have good evidence at this stage like photos showing issues etc, dont bother , save that infoi for the evidence pack rebuttal later0 -
Hey, this morning we've had a 49 page reply from Parking Eye, I will attach this further below. It attaches multiple photos of the vehicle, photos of the signage from March 2017, aswell as multiple photos of the car park & plans again dates March 2017. I've shortened it as went over the word limit aswell as removing personal details.
I'm stuck where to go next, I know this isn't POPLA's verdict but I feel Parking Eye have addressed everything we have raised, and obviously the fine has now raised from £60, to £100. Do we submit any evidence, withdraw our appeal and pay the £60.. I'm really lost on where to go now.
Here's their evidence reply.Section B
Case Summary
Copy of any Terms/Conditions
Case Detail
Site
Type
Name
Vehicle Registration Vehicle Make Vehicle Model Vehicle Colour Date/Time In Date/Time Out Time Allowed
Time In Car Park
Time Paid For
Payment Options Number of Paid Parking Machines
History
27/06/2017
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
03/07/2017 04/07/2017 04/07/2017 07/07/2017
12/07/2017 12/07/2017
12/07/2017
Rules and Conditions
Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
DVLA response received - Success
Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
Email response sent to the motorist advising that ParkingEye have received their appeal and they will receive a response within 28 days.
Processed website appeal received from motorist, please see Section E.
Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system (Evidence G)
Letter sent to motorist advising appeal unsuccessful as insufficient parking was purchased on the date of event – POPLA reference and details provided.
27/06/2017 11:30:10
27/06/2017 16:46:24
0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
5 hours 16 minutes 14 seconds
5 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
Paid Parking Machines & PayByPhone 5
Date of event
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). There are 37 signs, placed at the entrance, exit & throughout the site stating the terms and conditions.
The facility to pay by phone is also available at this site on the provision of the full, correct vehicle registration and payment card details.
Evidence G
System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.
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.
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.’
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 white background.
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.
Lord Hodge states that, “...local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive [...] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”
ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions"
"If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking"
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[...] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras [...] and to the processing of this data [...]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow ParkingEye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable ParkingEye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.
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. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the BPA code of practice.
Section C
Parking Charge Notice
Any notes of the operative
04/07/2017 - Letter1 - Ltr01-217 (Page 1 of 2)
.
04/07/2017 - Letter1 - Ltr01-217 (Page 2 of 2)
.
Section D
Registered Keeper Details Liability Trail
Case Detail
Case Details
Case Reference Car Park
In Date/Time Out Date/Time Time Allowed Time In Car Park Time Paid For
Contact Details
Contact Type Contact Name Address
Vehicle Details
Registration Make Model Colour
Financial
Current Value Outstanding Paid To Date
242672/398767 Tower Road, Newquay 27/06/2017 11:30:10 27/06/2017 16:46:24 0 hours 0 minutes
5 hours 16 minutes
5 hours 0 minutes
Keeper
£100.00 £100.00 £0.00
Photographs In
Out
Section E
Original Representation Notice of Rejection
07/07/2017 - Website Appeal Response (Page 1 of 1)
.
12/07/2017 - image1.PNG
.
12/07/2017 - image2.JPG
.
12/07/2017 - 2017-07-07 - Website Appeal.pdf (Page 1 of 1)
.
12/07/2017 - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Insufficient (Page 1 of 4)
.
12/07/2017 - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Insufficient (Page 2 of 4)
.
12/07/2017 - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Insufficient (Page 3 of 4)
.
12/07/2017 - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Insufficient (Page 4 of 4)
.
Section F
Images, photographs and plans etc.
01/04/2015 - 'Welcome...' Installed 31/03/12 (Page 1 of 1)
.
01/04/2015 - 'Welcome...' signage in situ-Installed 31/03/12 - date taken 07/06/13
.
01/04/2015 - SN1a_Paid Parking_Entrance Sign_600x800.pdf (Page 1 of 1)
.
01/04/2015 - Replacement entrance sign
.
01/04/2015 - Tower Road Car Park_Please enter full reg_500x800_v2.pdf (Page 1 of 1) .
22/03/2016 - DSCN0380.jpg
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Car Park_P&D_PBP_600x800_Summer 2017 (Page 1 of 1)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 1 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 2 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 3 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 4 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 5 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 6 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 7 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 8 of 9)
.
30/03/2017 - Tower Road Signage Plan Summer 2017 Tariffs (Page 9 of 9)
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6181.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6166.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6167.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6163.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6178.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6161.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6160.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6157.JPG
.
03/04/2017 - IMG_6156.JPG
Would really appreciate any help, thankyou.0 -
No need to replicate it all here - it's mostly standard template stuff we've seen before.
You need to pick through it point by point and rebut anything you disagree with or that is plain wrong.
Have they attached a copy of an unredacted contract with the landowner, showing clear lines of authority through to PE? Or have they attached some dodgy looking Witness Statement, which isn't a contract and you must take that apart.
There have been a few recent cases where PE haven't provided the contract to POPLA and have accordingly lost their case. So you need to go to town on the contract issue.
Also go to town on the Grace Period, especially as this was holiday season in a very busy holiday resort and exiting the car park is subject to congestion at this peak time of year.
Just looking at the times in their evidence pack - is 11.30am the time the car park was entered, or the time the ticket was purchased?Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards