PCN from PE. Going for POPLA Appeal this week

Martinmeet

Hi all,

I am new to this forum and had never experienced this PCN thing in my life before. Please help me in my case:

1. I have been sent the PCN for overstaying (but was under the grace period).
2. I appealed on PE website BUT gave away the name of the driver. I did not know the practices of dealing with such things and thought genuine mitigating reasons will explain it all and they should cancel this.
3. But they did not and now I have received their letter saying my appeal was not succefull and I can appeal to POPLA.

I found this forum by searching on google and read few threads. I realised that I should not have given the name of the driver but now I have done it, can I still appeal and win with POPLA?

They did not allow grace period to the driver and they did not consider the scenarios of this overstayed time (which was less than 10 minutes each time, entering and exiting).

Please suggest what should I do?

I am going to read more but if someone can guide whether I should appeal in the scenario I have already revealed the name of the driver, it will give me some hope to contnue and fight for this.


Many many thanks

Martinmeet

Coupon-mad

Start by reading the NEWBIES thread, post #3 of it gives you template POPLA appeal points.

Do you mean you visited the car park twice (what we call a 'double dip')?

Martinmeet

Thank you Coupon-mad. I did visited the site twice but the PCN is only for one visit.

I am going through all the threads and reading what I can.

Everywhere, it is given that do not disclose the drive information, but in my case, I have already done it, before finding this forum. My bad.

Can I still win if I appeal to POPLA? All of my point are valid though as below:

1. Grace periods were not applied
2. Inappropriate use of ANPR technology
3. A valid ticket was paid for and placed inside the vehicle (overstay under 10 minutes when entring and exiting on single visit)
4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

Please suggest.

I am preparing the appeal now for POPLA. I will post it tomorrow for reviews and comments.

Many Thanks

The_Deep

If you stay was but a few minutes, i.e. less than the grace period, then that should win your appeal at PoPLA, and the identity of the driver is not important, but I am puzzled as to why you consider ANPR use inappropriate.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

Mir-kat

The inappropriate use of anpr was a popla point i used as the signs in the car park did not state that ANPR cameras will be used to calculate entry and exit times. The poster messaged me to ask for help as he used the same car park (leeds aire street) that i won at popla appeal on the same point of grace periods not being applied

The_Deep

The use of ANPR is, imo, entirely appropriate. What the signs may or may not say is another matter.

Coupon-mad

If this was Aire Street, just search the forum and find one already written from 2017!

Martinmeet

Thank you "The Deep", "Mir-kat" and "Coupon-mad".

Apologies for not coming back earlier, I have been sick, and now signed off from work as got sever chest infection. After having some rest, I have gone through few more threads, and have written the appeal. I am posting it below, so please have a look and advise, anything I have missed, or added wrong, if I have said something wrong or incorrectly or any other suggestion that can help me get this PCN off my back.

Many Thanks

Martinmeet

Martinmeet

I think I have crossed the word limit here and gone over 25k words. It's also not letting me give my dropbox address to share it as pdf.

Now breaking it down into two posts for your review.

Could you please review the image and then the red text to see if I these are ok to use or needs amending/removing or removing the image itself?

Any comments, feedback on the draft will really help me get it right.

Again, thank you very much to all of you for your help and guidance in this so far.

---

[FONT=&quot]POPLA Appeal[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Vehicle Registration Number: XXXXXX
PCN Reference: XXXXXX
POPLA Code: XXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Issuer: ParkingEye [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Adjudicator,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I, received a letter dated [Date] acting as a Parking Charge Notice. My appeal to ParkingEye was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on [Date] and rejected via an email dated [Date]. I content that I, as the driver, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A valid ticket was paid for and placed inside the vehicle[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Grace periods were not applied[/FONT] – BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Inappropriate use of ANPR technology – The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Signage were not prominent, clear or legible from entrance and from all parking spaces[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA & is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A valid ticket was paid for and placed inside the vehicle[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A valid ticket was purchased on [Date] for a total duration of two hours between HH:MM and HH:MM (please see Image of this ticket in point 2 below). This ticket was displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Grace periods were not applied[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The BPA‘s CoP states:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read " observe the signage terms, before paying.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Link to Britishparking co uk > News >good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“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,”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] he explains.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“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.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The ANPR photos on the PCN show an arrival time of HH:MM:SS and a departure time of HH:MM:SS – an alleged overstay of 16 minutes.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although no mention is made of any ticket purchase on the PCN, I am attaching the photo of the ticket which I purchased at HH:MM for 2 hours of parking, which expired at HH:MM. In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][image of ticket][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The Aire Street Leeds Car Park is a busy location which has a train station, popular shops and it is located in the city centre of Leeds. It is also an extremely rough uneven surface, littered with potholes and loose stones and gravel with no parking bays marked, making it difficult for a driver to manoeuvre safely and find a parking space.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The same arguments relating to difficulty in arriving are made as to the difficulty of leaving the car park at the end of any stay.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On the day in question the ticket machine closest to me and near the entrance was out of order, and all the drivers had to queue for the only operational machine at the back of the car park, behind parked cars with not enough space to stand in a queue, in order to purchase a ticket. In addition, due to the date being the Boxing Day Sale day and early cold morning, there were several cars parked, and drivers waiting in queue to pay for the parking.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When my turn came to pay for the parking, I found out that the machine was not accepting the new pound coin, contradictory to what it stated on top of the machine, saying “This machine no longer accepts the old £1 coin”. I had to then ask other drivers for change to pay for my parking with old pound coins.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the time of leaving the car park, I came back to the car, had to wait for a minute to clear out the foggy windows on that cold and freezing day, and then waited to get the queue cleared before I can exit the car park.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Needs the details [Link to the thread][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The recommendation reads:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Source:link to britishparking co uk > write > Documents > Meeting Notes > Governance > 20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide whether to enter or not into a contract before paying.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is therefore argued that the duration of stay in question (which ParkingEye claims as ‘overstay’) is not an unreasonable grace period.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And, taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park, the condition of day being very cold, out-of-order machine and operational machine not accepting new pound coins, allowing car to clear the fog to safely drive out of the car park, 16 minutes are perfectly within scope of both the MINIMUM grace periods taken together and so I contend that the PCN was not properly given.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ParkingEye’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The ParkingEye’s main sign in the Aire Street car park (see Figure) states:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “Car park monitored by ANPR systems”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Specifically missing from this sentence (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) are the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices by capturing images of vehicles’ number plates, calculating length of stay between entry and exit in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on ParkingEye’s sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Any reasonable driver would believe that the parking time would begin from the time on the ticket printed when parking was purchased by the driver.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Requirement for Transparency:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]and Paragraph 69: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Contract terms that may have different meanings: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Link to legislation gov uk > uksi > 2008 > 1277 > contents > made[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) -[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a) the commercial practice omits material information,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](b) the commercial practice hides material information,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.[/FONT]

Martinmeet

Cont....
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from entrance and from all parking spaces[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There was neither a contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that I 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Link > imgur com > a > AkMCN[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Link to thread > h 2 bp blogspot com > -eYdphoIIDgE > VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10 > 5uFjL528DgU > s640 > Parking Bsign_001.jpg[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas behind the parked vehicles. 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signage at the entrance is on a very low height of less than 10 inches, not clear, and well maintained and unable to read from a driver’s height and/or seat at all (please see the image below).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][image of signage - ibb co > gQgBJH ][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge 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':[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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, not as I have shown in day light) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of my 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA & is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This situation is an 'ordinary' contract, a simple consumer/trader transaction with a ticket for parking being purchased in good faith and produced by a faulty set of machines and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEyeLtd v Beavis. Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position.

At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment in 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' it was held: ''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.” ''

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty;’ ''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary contracts with a transaction and tariff: ''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''

This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

Clearly a charge out of all proportion to the tariff - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man, for taken few minutes to park, get out of the car, observe the signs and pay for the parking or staying few minutes extra after the parking time ended to leave the car park in safe to drive car and letting the road clear first before drive out of the space(s). A huge charge arising under the excuse of such a minor term is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA, enacted after the Beavis parking event) supports a consumer's position: - Under Schedule 2 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' it includes: ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

As this charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Separately, I can find no trace of a decided/approved planning application relating to the Aire Street Leeds car park for the ParkingEye signage and cameras. Assuming that indeed no planning application was submitted or approved, then the signs hold no validity even were they properly sized, properly legible and properly placed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I request ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage put on this Car Park, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (26/12/2017)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Regards[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Martinmeet[/FONT]

Martinmeet

Being a new user, I am not allowed to insert any links. please suggest how I can share the image of signage which I have mentioned in my point 4, just above the red text?