First Email to BPA Registered Company

Flyawaypaul

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Are you past day 56 from the parking event yet, or can you delay your POPLA appeal to ensure that point is reached first?

Yes, I am past day 56 from the parking event without receiving anything by post, just an email from the parking company declining my appeal to them as keeper.

I am also over the 32 days of the POPLA code. Should I still try and submit a POPLA appeal?

Flyawaypaul

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can test a POPLA code by putting it into the POPLA webpage, it will either work or it won't. Should last 33 days including weekends.

I am sorry, I only just saw this post. I will test out the code.

Flyawaypaul

Here is my updated POPLA appeal, thank you:

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, am writing to appeal a parking charge from Corporate Services (Hereford). I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
2. The entrance signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, especially in relation to the sum of the parking charge itself.
3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority -the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.”

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

2. The entrance signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, especially in relation to the sum of the parking charge itself.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only. In the Beavis case, the 85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

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

The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs. The following requirements, set out in Appendix B, are disputed:

The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times,including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of are tro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.

In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead, nor is it readable and understandable at all times.

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 vs London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCACiv106’ about a driver not seeing the terms and, consequently, he 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 entrance signs appear from a driver's seat (not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up), in the same lighting conditions. 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.

In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge.

POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows: ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)
are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the
relevant land’'.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the sum, £75 is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority-the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto’ charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) 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 Code of Practice 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:
the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Flyawaypaul

Half_way wrote: »

If you've got a POPLA code, yo can challenge the parking charge via POPLA, post your challenge here ( removing any personal details/codes etc)
You should also contact/complain to the ladowner as well, if you havent already done so

I have posted my revised POPLA challenge above.

Flyawaypaul

KeithP wrote: »

Have you looked online for photographs?

What car park is it?

Perhaps there are already pics on this forum.
Use the forum's search facility to check.

It's the Courtyard arts centre car park in Hereford. I couldn't find any pictures of signage online or any POPLA challenge specifically regarding this car park on this forum. I have adapted another recent challenge and posted it above.

Thanks

Flyawaypaul

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes indeedy, and replace it with the 100% winning point that no NTK was served. That's a template point in the NEWBIES thread, written mainly for UKPC cases, but can be used here.

Revised POPLA challenge above. I would be grateful for your further feedback.

Thank you

Flyawaypaul

Umkomaas wrote: »

Over what? The 32 days for your POPLA appeal or 56 days since the parking event?

Both. I've posted my revised draft POPLA challenge above.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

You'll surely be too late to use a POPLA code that you said was already past 32 days, 2 days ago. Like I said:

You can test a POPLA code by putting it into the POPLA webpage, it will either work or it won't. Should last 33 days including weekends.

Should have done more than test it on 1st May if already over 32 days then.

Flyawaypaul

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You'll surely be too late to use a POPLA code that you said was already past 32 days, 2 days ago. Like I said:Should have done more than test it on 1st May if already over 32 days then.

Okay. Is this as far as I can take it on the forum then? Do you have any idea what I can expect next? An invitation to court?

Umkomaas

Flyawaypaul wrote: »

Okay. Is this as far as I can take it on the forum then? Do you have any idea what I can expect next? An invitation to court?

From Corporate Services (Hereford)? :rotfl:

http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Corporate_Services_Hereford.html

Probably ignorable debt collector letters - read about them in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4. Please don't ask questions about debt collectors because all the answers are already provided in the sticky.