Help. Breastfeeding parking fine

Rmac84

I am trying to post my appeal but it's not letting me and I am now breastfeeding! So will try again in half an hour when baby is done!

Hoogle

Am I the only 1 thinking 2 1/2 hours for breast feeding would not be a reasonable defense ? I have no experience with it myself, but if I was to imagine myself as the person reading the appeals and someone put down breast feeding was the sole reason for being there I would think 45 mins maximum maybe a bit extra to settle baby down afterwards before continuing Journey.

I am not arguing or judging just sharing my thoughts on reading the available information.

Umkomaas

Am I the only 1 thinking 2 1/2 hours for breast feeding would not be a reasonable defense

Where does it say that the OP spent 2 1/2 hours breastfeeding? Wow, that’s gonna be one large baby!

Rmac84

No, I purchased my ticket 26 mins after arriving in the car park!!

Rmac84

I have missed the 28 days popla, can I still submit, it let me get past the first page! (Problem with having a baby and toddler is hardly any time to do this!)

Questions
1. When I submit to popla, is this "other grounds of appeal"?
2. Do you think the signage section is ok, as I think the signs are similar to Beavis?! But other issues with signage are ok.
3. Signage references case 5960956830 2.6.16 where can I find details of this case as don't want to include if not relevant.
4. Should I add anything further re Breastfeeding / discrimination?
5. Do I attached photos separately to the pdf of the written appeal or do I paste these and include in the appeal pdf?


Here is my appeal.....





APPEAL POINT 1 – GRACE PERIOD

The 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 I entered into the ‘contract’ with Britannia Parking once I had found a parking space and taken the time to find a sign and read it.

As stated in the British Parking Association Code of Practice:
13 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. 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.

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.”

I would argue that 10 minutes is not sufficient grave period for a breastfeeding mother and that additional time should be allowed under the Equality Act 2010. Britannia Parking should provide evidence of procedures for dealing with disabled / breastfeeding mothers where 10 minutes is insufficient.

Rmac84

APPEAL POINT 2 – DISCRIMINATION



Upon arriving to the car park my 3 month old baby girl became agitated and required my to feed her before I had time to purchase a ticket (see attached screenshots of messages I sent to my mother telling her where I was and that I was breastfeeding my baby, proof that this is what I was doing).



Breastfeeding in public places is protected under the Equality Act 2010 for as long as you wish to breastfeed your baby, toddler or small child without an age restriction.



The Equality Act 2010, as stated below in Section 13, says that it is discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding. It applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, further and higher education bodies and association.



Equality Act 2010; CHAPTER 15; PART 2; CHAPTER 2; PROHIBITED CONDUCT; Discrimination



13 Direct discrimination



(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.



(6) If the protected characteristic is sex— (a) less favourable treatment of a woman includes less favourable treatment of her because she is breast-feeding;



We are aware that POPLA is able to request that a parking operator cancels a parking charge if POPLA considers that it has not given reasonable consideration to mitigating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances prevented the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions.



I would argue that 10 minutes is not sufficient grave period for a breastfeeding mother and that additional time should be allowed under the Equality Act 2010. Britannia Parking should provide evidence of procedures for dealing with disabled / breastfeeding mothers where 10 minutes is insufficient.









APPEAL POINT 3 – NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY



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





APPEAL POINT 4 – SIGNAGE



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 are few signs around the car park and many of them are too low and often obscured by cars (see attached photos). The main signage by the pay terminal is not facing outwards into the car park, so can only be read once at the pay station (see attached photos).



I also believe that the signs tell drivers that ANPR technology is used but DO NOT state what the data captured by the ANPR cameras will be used for. Thus, failing to comply with the British Parking Association following statement:



21.1) You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.



There was neither a contract nor an 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.



I believe the signs at this car park do 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.

The signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in many 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.



Since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, I believe 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.''



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 Britannia Parking 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 Britannia Parking 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.

Umkomaas

Im not sure about the discrimination point, POPLA won’t deal with that in its own right, but may be worth adding to back up your other point on Grace Periods.

Grace Periods (both of them, start and end of parking) - get the definition and parameters from the BPA Code of Practice Clause 13. Here it is:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf.

So you need to explain the reasons for the delay in purchasing the ticket - busy car park, took a while to find a spot, screaming baby, time to read signage, trying to pay via their website, then eventually to ticket machine with a need to read instructions, then insert monies for ticket. Lay this on thick. While their is a ‘minimum 10 minutes’ grace period at the end of parking, it is much more open-ended at the front end.

Then you need to say that you were just 3 minutes over at the end of parking, time needed to get from your parking spot to the exit, then time to queue to access a busy road.

So there’s 2 Grace Periods you need to deal with.

What date is your POPLA deadline, because you can normally squeeze two or three more days out of it, especially if submitting over the weekend.

If your code is still working then just get something submitted (under ‘Other’); you haven’t got time to gild the lily. Miss your chance at POPLA, then it’s 6 years of potential grief from the PPC and their debt collectors you will likely have to deal with.

Landowner authority is good to include

Rmac84

Thanks Umkomaas.

Am I correct in thinking the bpa code section 13 discusses grace periods for people who have entered and not purchased a ticket or only the grace period at the end of a parking session. In my case the breach at the end is compliant with the 10 minutes, but the 'breach' at the beginning isn't actually specified in the BPA code ("
Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes").

However section 16 references the EA 2010, which covers breastfeeding as well as disabled persons. Therefore the point in 16.2 "You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.", surely this should apply for breastfeeding mothers also.

Any thoughts?

Rmac84

P.s. I am 6 days late. Monday was the deadline

Redx

Rmac84 wrote: »

P.s. I am 6 days late. Monday was the deadline

might be too late to be accepted, so get it in today asap, regardless

upload it as a pdf using OTHER

clause #13 adds TWO grace periods , one before (unspecified) but considered to be between 5 and 10 minutes , plus OVER 10 MINUTES TO LEAVE

you could argue that the other point does apply to you, they can only say yes or no

you only need one winning point , they will ignore the rest