Dewsbury Mecca Bingo

Sticks_and_Stones

Right after numerous readings of various threads and taking the advice of the wonderful helpers Ive written my POPLA appeal.

This is 1 out of 3 appeals - 2 of the parking charges are the "golden tickets" so I have not received a POLA code on appeal to ParkingEye and have been told to provide driver information within 28 days - Am I right in assuming to ignore this and wait until they send me a POLA code after this period? The third one is below and the charge mentions the POFA 2012 act.
The 3 tickets were issued by parking in the same spot as the driver was unaware they were parked in Mecca Bingo Car Park and had assumed they were in the council car park which is adjacent and is the cheapest car park in UK at 5p for the first hour.

Please please bear with me as I am a newcomer to all this - one good thing that has come about is finding out how good this MSE Forum is!

Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: XXXXXXX
POPLA Verification Code: xxx

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd.

As the keeper of the car, I wish to put forward to you that a ticket was purchased for the hour the car was parked in the Mecca Bingo Car Park, but due to unclear signage a ticket was purchased from the meter that was nearest to the car (less than 50 feet away) but it turned out this meter was only for cars parked in the Kirklees Council Car Park and not for the adjacent car park belonging to Mecca Bingo. As there is no clear signage anywhere stating the area allocated only for Mecca Bingo customers the driver was unaware they had purchased the ticket from the wrong machine. The driver was going to the gym and had parked in such a manner that they could easily get onto the main road from there and take the long route round to the gym and hence have a quick run to warm up before a class. The driver genuinely did not know he had parked in the Mecca Bingo Car Park, especially as the Kirklees Car Park is 5p an hour compared to the Mecca Bingo charge of £?.?? . If the driver had parked in the bay opposite, that would have been the Council Car Park.

Therefore, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. The signs are not prominent, clear or legible
2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority
4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper


1. 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

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 is not clear and is in small font which makes it impossible to read as you are going into the car park, especially as the signage is on the edge of a mini roundabout. The driver was able to park the car without driving pass any of the signs and there is one sign placed at the roundabout as you leave but this does not enable the driver the chance to read this unless they physically get out of the car. The signage is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
The BPA Code of Practice states:

"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."

Furthermore, the postal parking charge notice received, states that 'the signage displayed at the entrance to and through the car park, states that this car park is private land managed by Parkingeye.

There were no informational signs at the entrance of the car park, informing drivers of the required information. Instead there was a plain 'P' sign and an arrow, giving no indication of it being a private, paid car park. This makes the parking charge notice factually incorrect, as well as going against BPA guidelines.

In this respect, I believe ParkingEye to be in breach of the BPA Code of Practice by not providing the required information at the car park entrance.

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 sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. As you enter the roundabout, the only signage that can be seen are on the turning of the roundabout and no further signage can be seen if you are parking to the left of the carpark near the entrance. ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could be read at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic to read on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the cameras and were not noted or read by the occupants of the car. 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.
Parking Eye Ltd. state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but this is not clear. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visible to the driver if they went right into the car park and parked further along. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, as the sign is on the entrance to the roundabout the signs are not seen by the driver at all if you turn left into the car park and park where the driver did. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.
The only signage in font that is eligible is as on the edge of the roundabout which has the Pay and Display sign for Mecca Bingo but the arrow points to the right of the car park not to the area behind where the car had been parked. There is no signage making it clear that the car park is split into two with one area being the Council car park and the other being the Mecca Bingo Car Park. The council side of the car park does have signage that states it is the Kirklees Car Park and to use the correct machine but the Mecca Bingo site has no such signs. The Mecca Bingo ticket machine is near the entrance to the Building and cannot be seen from the naked eye at all from where the car had been parked.
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
!!!8220;Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear!!!8221;.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Eye is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The alleged breach occurred as there is no clear indication of how the car park is split so that some of the Car Park spaces belongs to Parking Eye whilst the majority of them belong to the Kirklees council. As you are entering from a mini roundabout there is only one visible sign indicating that the RIGHT of the car park belongs to Mecca Bingo. As the car was parked 3 spaces behind this blue sign (ATTACH PHOTO !!!), there is no clear signage that this part belonged to Mecca Bingo. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by ParkingEye plus to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible by all drivers; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that these signs are visible by all drivers and there is clear signage of the section of the Car Park belonging to Parking Eye.

The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. ParkingEye did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.
Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 18.2. Terms & Conditions / Entrance signs.

The BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 18.2 states:

"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."

Furthermore, the postal parking charge notice received, states that 'the signage displayed at the entrance to and through the car park, states that this car park is private land managed by PrivateEye.
There were no informational signs at the entrance of the car park, informing drivers of the required information. Instead there was a plain 'P' sign and an arrow, giving no indication of it being a private, paid car park. This makes the parking charge notice factually incorrect, as well as going against BPA guidelines.

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:
UNABLE TO POST LINK AS NEWCOMER

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

UNABLE TO POST LINK AS NEWCOMER

''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:

UNABLE TO POST LINK AS NEWCOMER

''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:

UNABLE TO POST LINK AS NEWCOMER

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.

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

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.''

Sticks_and_Stones

continued .......

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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
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.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators!!!8217; Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
!!!8226; be registered with the Information Commissioner
!!!8226; keep to the Data Protection Act
!!!8226; follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
!!!8226; follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner!!!8217;s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed !!!8220;unfair!!!8221; under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Many Thanks

Registered Driver

PLEASE COULD SOMEONE AMEND LINKS BELOW AS I AM UNABLE TO POST LINKS
i mgur.c om/g allery/e Aq1c
i mgur.c om/g allery/k JoYD0Y

The_Deep

Phew, that should give them pause for thought.

It is of course a scam. This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/gallery/eAq1c

Do not show POPLA any photos which show readable signs (particularly not the white ones with terms, or those on the approach roundabout, even if saying that they couldn't be read from the car or space, do NOT show them).

Your two close pics of the space are good, as they show no PE terms near. I would only use them, plus this aerial view:

https://imgur.com/gallery/kJoYD0Y

Embed them directly into your appeal, as illustration where you talk about signs. Not uploaded as extra attachments for the POPLA Assessor to have to work out what relates to what.

Yes re the other 2 'Golden Tickets', wait for your POPLA codes! You will win those hands down.

Re this one, your appeal looks good but I never suggest this, as it doesn't win at POPLA:

ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

And look for typos and wrong words, like here, you mean illegible. I'm sure the signs are not 'eligible' - looking for love!

The only signage in font that is eligible

This will not be able to be used in a case where the PCN is not a ''golden ticket'':

2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

Re your final point, can you provide & embed an image of the ticket the driver bought at the 5p machine, which shows that they came to a contractual agreement with the Council, not PE? It would improve the argument there.

Sticks_and_Stones

Thank you for your quick response coupon - mad. As per the points raised I will:
1. Remove section 2 (Keeper Liability) and Section 4 (ANPR accuracy) - This will leave me with 3 points on which to base my appeal. Will this be enough and do I need to mention anything else?
2. Go through for Typos
3. I have deleted the images with all signage as suggested which has left me with 4 images to upload in the correct section. 2 of the space, 1 of the aerial view and 1 showing how the Council Space ensures you have the right ticket
4. I did try and root around my car to look for the tickets but could not find them. I have 3 kids so my car needs to be cleaned of the mounting rubbish at least once a week. I even looked in the bins but to no avail

Coupon-mad

This will leave me with 3 points on which to base my appeal. Will this be enough and do I need to mention anything else?

That is normal for a case where you can't argue about the POFA.

Sticks_and_Stones

So I got a reply back from POPLA that Parkingeye do not wish to contest the appeal !!!
I also have not heard back from ParkingEye about my 2 other parking fines (which were both golden tickets)
After I posted on this forum, I have to say I was disappointed by the lack of response but I know what an expert Coupan -mad is so I did exactly what she told me to do (even though not sending the additional pics made no sense to me) and I was expecting there to be a battle on my hands.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised and cannot thank this forum enough for providing me with all the help.
The only advice I could give to anyone who has a parking fine and is looking to this forum for help .... PLEASE LOOK AT THE NEWBIES FAQ. Thank you so much Coupon - mad for all your help and for taking the time to look into my appeal xxx

Coupon-mad

Fantastic, so glad they folded! PPCs really do not like long forum-argued POPLA appeals.

And golden tickets cannot hold you liable, as you know, so no worries with them. I expect they are cancelled if they've not issued a POPLA code.

I also have not heard back from ParkingEye about my 2 other parking fines (which were both golden tickets)

Log in using the PE Portal and you will see!

Redx

Sticks_and_Stones wrote: »

After I posted on this forum, I have to say I was disappointed by the lack of response but I know what an expert Coupan -mad is so I did exactly what she told me to do (even though not sending the additional pics made no sense to me) and I was expecting there to be a battle on my hands.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised and cannot thank this forum enough for providing me with all the help.
The only advice I could give to anyone who has a parking fine and is looking to this forum for help .... PLEASE LOOK AT THE NEWBIES FAQ. Thank you so much Coupon - mad for all your help and for taking the time to look into my appeal xxx

that was because nobody else could add anything , all people like me could do was hit the thanks button on her posts


no point replying to say , yeah do as CM has told you to do, that goes without saying , lol


well done


hopefully you will get a result on the others too

Sticks_and_Stones

SO ....
I have now received 2 further POPLA appeal codes relating to the 2 golden non -POFA compliance PCN so these should hopefully be cancelled too especially as my first PCN (not a golden ticket) was cancelled by Parking Eye when I appealed. All 3 were issued within a space of 2 weeks.

Please could you have a read below and highlight any changes I need to make - I have only added points 1 and 2 to my original appeal and then listed the other points mentioned above (Points 1,3,5 renamed points 3,4,5)

Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: XXXXX
POPLA Verification Code: XXXXX

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd.

As the keeper of the car, I wish to put forward to you that a ticket was purchased for the hour the car was parked in the Mecca Bingo Car Park, but due to unclear signage a ticket was purchased from the meter that was nearest to the car (less than 50 feet away) but it turned out this meter was only for cars parked in the Kirklees Council Car Park and not for the adjacent car park belonging to Mecca Bingo. The driver had only started using the Council gym recently so was not aware that where they had park was not part of the Council Car Park, even though a ticket from the Council Car Park had been purchased.
As there is no clear signage anywhere stating the area allocated only for Mecca Bingo customers the driver was unaware they had purchased the ticket from the wrong machine. The driver was going to the gym and had parked in such a manner that they could easily get onto the main road from there and take the long route round to the gym and hence have a quick run to warm up before a class. The driver genuinely did not know they had parked in the Mecca Bingo Car Park, especially as the Kirklees Car Park is 5p an hour compared to the Mecca Bingo charge of £4 for 24 hours and with the driver only staying for an hour, it makes no sense why they would park in the Mecca Bingo Car Park as the distance to the gym from both car park is the same and the council car always has spaces. As the registered keeper I have received 3 of these fines for parking in the same area in the space of 2 weeks (including one for parking on a Sunday (the council car park is free on Sundays). I have been to the car park myself and the way the signs are displayed are very misleading making the driver think that the Mecca Bingo Car park is only to the right of the roundabout and not the full Car Park as you turn from the roundabout.
I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
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. The signs are not prominent, clear or legible
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority
5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper


1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
To support this point further the following areas of dispute are raised:

1a) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
1b) The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

1a) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Friday 2nd February 2018. The relevant period is therefore the 14 day period from Saturday 3rd February 2018 to Friday 16th February 2018 inclusive. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so !!!8220;given!!!8221; for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, !!!8220;working day!!!8221; means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The !!!8220;Letter Date!!!8221; stated on the PCN is Friday 16th February 2018 in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been !!!8220;given!!!8221; on Tuesday 20th February 2018 (i.e. outside of the relevant period).

1b) The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:
The notice must be given by!!!8212;
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8212;
(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;
Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f).


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

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.''

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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 House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.