After just winning a POPLA!

KeithP

I must say I thought the formatting of Nay44's appeal was quite good.

DD1A

i have jiggled a few things around and tidied it up the layout. i hope this is adequate enough to submit now as im starting to get a bit worried as the deadline is coming close.

Coupon-mad

You have over 30 days to use a POPLA code. Relax, take this over the weekend.

i have been through paragraph 9 of POFA and i cannot see anything at fault so id say the ntk is complaint

so i will remove the following

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

No idea in a million years why you removed that perfectly decent appeal point, and just assumed the NTK was compliant, seeing as all recent ECP POPLA Decisions in the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky thread since August, have shown POPLA saying the use of the words 'date issued' is NOT compliant.

Have you not read any links from recent POPLA Decisions reports and gleaned that yet?

DD1A

Thanks again CM for clearly pointing this out! I think the problem is I have read to many
Ok so I will re add this point in and submit this god damn thing
I did notice a lot of the submissions had this point in but I may have missed the key point ‘date issued’ bit oops

DD1A

is this ok to put in

The driver then would need to make a decision on whether they wish to remain parked at that car park, decide they did not like the terms or was unable to locate somewhere to acquire change for the meter in such a remote area then re-enter the vehicle and exit the car park. It is clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations and decisions, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park.

Umkomaas

DD1A wrote: »

is this ok to put in

No, because they are mitigating circumstances and POPLA don’t adjudicate on mitigation. It adds no value.

Less can be more.

DD1A

ok thanks kept to how it was

DD1A

ok i have added the extra points CM pointed at at the beginning

POPLA Ref: #############
ECP Ref: ########

A notice to keeper was issued on ####### and received by me, the registered keeper of ####### for an alleged contravention of “Breach of Terms and Conditions: No valid pay and display/permit was purchased” at Wish Street - Rye. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. 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 or grace period
5. The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace’ Periods

(1).
In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier Park’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.
• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper:

(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.

ECP insinuates that they do not know the name or address of the driver through their request to the keeper to part with that information. ”If you were not the driver we ask you to supply the full name and current serviceable postal address of the driver so that we may address this request to them.” This however, is not a statement of lack of knowledge regarding the name and service address of the driver.

While ECP does ask the keeper to pay the unpaid charges and supply a name and address for the driver, they do not ask them to pass on the notice to the driver.

Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (f) The notice to keeper does not:
"warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given-
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid".

Furthermore attention should be drawn to the ECP’s at best unclear and at worse incorrect PCN. In particular the last paragraph states:
“If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle”.

Within 29 days of what? It fails to mention the date the notice was given and misstates the timeline of keeper, which is never 29 days from this date of the notice, which is the implication from their ambiguous and badly-drafted PCN.

(2).
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

(3).
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.

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

(4).
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. 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 18 of the BPA CoP explains valid Entrance signs which in this case is not.
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this which is covered by appendix B on pdf link below.
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf

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.

As you can see from the attached photos which were taken from the area in the same conditions the signs are limited on entry which do not comply with The BPA CoP, Section 18.2, sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden.
Paragraph 18.2 of the BPA CoP states
“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”
There is no clear visible sign at the entrance to this car park and only the 'welcome including P' sign is only visible from one direction from the road. Therefore, to be able to read the additional signs within the car park, the driver must enter the car park.

The signs at this site 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. Nor defining vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods which is explained in paragraph 13 of the BPA CoP Grace Periods listed below, (I believe this may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) 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).

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://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':

(a) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(b) 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.

(5).
The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period. As Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA quoted in the news article ‘Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ period’: “…there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.” To briefly summaries his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and pay.

The total time from arrival to exit was 15 minutes. That is a 15 minute period for the driver to park the vehicle, exit the vehicle, find a sign which holds the T&C for the car park and read the full sign. The driver then would need to make a decision on whether they wish to remain parked at that car park, decide they did not like the terms then re-enter the vehicle and exit the car park. It is clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations and decisions, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park.

Paragraph 13 of the BPA CoP states “reasonable and visable” Grace Periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.

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 signs are clearly vis 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.
Below are images I have taken from the ECP site,

Coupon-mad

Furthermore attention should be drawn to the ECP’s at best unclear and at worse incorrect PCN. In particular the last paragraph states:
“If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details,

Does it say that? ECP improved their wording about the 29 days this year? Are you sure your one says 'within 29 days'?

IMHO, the ONLY point to make about ECP's documents is this one as your first point:

1. ECP’s NTK clearly does not comply with Paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

The 'date of issue/date issued' on the PCN differs from that in the supposed POFA document, the NTK. This is misleading and ambiguous. ECP seem confused on when the alleged incident is meant to have taken place, either that or they are deliberately misleading keepers as to the 'date issued' from which the 28 day period can potentially lead to 'keeper liability'. As such, the Notice to Keeper was not properly given and cannot be considered compliant from a POFA point of view.

...then have your 2 - 5 as you have it, except:

Some typos here:

5).
The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period. As Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA quoted in the news article ‘Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods: “…there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.” To briefly [STRIKE]summaries[/STRIKE] summarise his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and pay.

The total time from arrival to exit was 15 minutes. That is a 15 minute period for the driver to park the vehicle, exit the vehicle, find a sign which holds the T&C for the car park and read the full sign. The driver then would need to make a decision on whether they wish to remain parked at that car park, decide they did not like the terms then re-enter the vehicle and exit the car park. It is clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations and decisions, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park.

Paragraph 13 of the BPA CoP states “reasonable and [STRIKE]visable[/STRIKE] visible” Grace Periods

And this last paragraph has fallen to the wrong place; this is meant to be in the signage point:

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 signs are clearly vis 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.
Below are images I have taken from the ECP site,

DD1A

I have made the final changes as kindly guided by CM

POPLA Ref: #############
ECP Ref: ########

A notice to keeper was issued on ####### and received by me, the registered keeper of ####### for an alleged contravention of “Breach of Terms and Conditions: No valid pay and display/permit was purchased” at Wish Street - Rye. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1. ECP’s NTK clearly does not comply with Paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. 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 or grace period
5. The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace’ Periods

(1).
The 'date of issue/date issued' on the PCN differs from that in the supposed POFA document, the NTK. This is misleading and ambiguous. ECP seem confused on when the alleged incident is meant to have taken place, either that or they are deliberately misleading keepers as to the 'date issued' from which the 28 day period can potentially lead to 'keeper liability'. As such, the Notice to Keeper was not properly given and cannot be considered compliant from a POFA point of view.

(2).
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

(3).
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.
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

(4).
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. 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 18 of the BPA CoP explains valid Entrance signs which in this case is not.
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this which is covered by appendix B on pdf link below.
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf

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.

As you can see from the attached photos which were taken from the area in the same conditions the signs are limited on entry which do not comply with The BPA CoP, Section 18.2, sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden.
Paragraph 18.2 of the BPA CoP states
“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”
There is no clear visible sign at the entrance to this car park and only the 'welcome including P' sign is only visible from one direction from the road. Therefore, to be able to read the additional signs within the car park, the driver must enter the car park.

The signs at this site 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. Nor defining vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods which is explained in paragraph 13 of the BPA CoP Grace Periods listed below, (I believe this may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) 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).
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://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':

(a) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(b) 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 signs are clearly vis 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.
Below are images I have taken from the ECP site.
(5).
The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period. As Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA quoted in the news article ‘Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods’: “…there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.” To briefly summarise his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and pay.

The total time from arrival to exit was 15 minutes. That is a 15 minute period for the driver to park the vehicle, exit the vehicle, find a sign which holds the T&C for the car park and read the full sign. The driver then would need to make a decision on whether they wish to remain parked at that car park, decide they did not like the terms then re-enter the vehicle and exit the car park. It is clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations and decisions, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park.

Paragraph 13 of the BPA CoP states “reasonable and visible” Grace Periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.