4 x ParkingEye Notices - ASDA, Brighton Marina

digi-dave

Hi all, so glad I found this forum!

So bit of a nightmare here. Last week through the post I received 4 (yes FOUR) ParkingEye notices for parking in the ASDA (3 hours max) carpark. The driver parked there instead of the multi-storey due to needing to purchase some bits 3 out of the 4 times - was closed the other. on their way for fishing trips.

Im bricking it a bit as very apprehensive about this whole appeal procedure and am already in quite a lot of financial difficulty and so the whole ordeal is causing me a lot of worry & stress. Buried my head a little and the first ticket's reduced payment is due tomorrow and I really don't know what to do!

I've read the newbies post, and will re-read tonight, my question is do I need to appeal these 4 tickets individually and go through the procedure 4 times for everything? or is there some way I can bundle them into one appeal?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

KeithP

The important thing is to never identify the driver.
So edit your post to say things like "The driver parked there...", and "the driver saw a sign..." and "the keeper received notices...".

Keep it so that the driver and keeper are seen as two different people.


While waiting for others to answer your question, have a look at this thread which was reported as won only last week:

ParkingEye @ ASDA, Brighton Marina - POPLA help please!

Again... edit your post now.

Umkomaas

I've read the newbies post, and will re-read tonight, my question is do I need to appeal these 4 tickets individually and go through the procedure 4 times for everything? or is there some way I can bundle them into one appeal

Each one separately using the blue text appeal from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post # 1.

To appeal each separately is standard advice. If you try to bundle them into one you will be highlighting to PE that they have a multi ticket case. They may eventually twig, but leave it to them to find out.

Just so we know, did each of the NtKs have a section on the back of the letter about the Protection of Freedoms Act and Keeper liability?

digi-dave

Thanks Umkomaas, Thought that would be the case.. will start drafting tomorrow and post here, hopefully someone will be able to review them for me.

Quentin

Help us to help you and take the trouble to answer the question in #3

digi-dave

Sorry forgot to add that bit, yes they all have that section

Umkomaas

hopefully someone will be able to review them for me.

The blue text appeal is a template that doesn't need any alteration - just use it as it stands, then you don't inadvertently blow off any of your toes.

No need for anyone to review them.

Coupon-mad

Just use the template, that's what it's there for. No copying it here, please.

And remember that you parked in the undercover bit...don't say you didn't...the bit with no signs (see the photos in the other thread). It's fairly local to me, I know the car park. NEVER overstay in a PE car park.

You should win though, in the end, with us.

digi-dave

Ok thanks, just with the text about adding to the appeal (after the blue template text) I didn't know if I had to or not. Will submit the first one tomorrow

Coupon-mad

Add nothing, no point really, just get 4 x POPLA codes.

digi-dave

HI All, Ok so an update on this, strangely 1 of my appeals with successful with ParkingEye and the charge was cancelled, however the 3 others we rejected and so I now need to appeal to Polpa.

Reading through the newbies post and also the only Brighton Marina post I can find on here (can't post a link as im a newbie!

I think I should be using the signage template. Unfortunately the link on that post to the appeal letter has expired so can't see what was written. I plan on going to the car park tonight to take some pictures which I will add to the below as there really is a couple of areas in the carpark where the signage is inadequate.

Do I need to amend much of the below? or make it more personal? I don't want to take out anything that is required! (I have also removed the links just for this post as i'm new and cant post links but they are the same ones as the template)

On 04/09/2017 ParkingEye Ltd issued a PCN notice for the vehicle VX02 LCU of which I am the registered keeper.

The driver of the vehicle was both:
A) A genuine customer at the ASDA store
Unaware of the parking limitations due to the signs in this car park are not being 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:

<link>

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:

<link>

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

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

<link>
''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:

<link>

''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:

<link>
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.


If it makes any difference, all the photos and times are when it is dark, so will take my photos in the same conditions.
Any advice appreciated.

Thanks