Advise on appeal wording for bad signing

ppsigning

Hi,

The driver for this vehicle overstayed the signed stay time, kind of. The signage that contained the more specific terms on the car park stated a time.

However a more prominent sign, evidence available, stated a different time through graffiti. At a normal viewing distance it would appear that the stay is indeed a different number causing confusion. Surely it is up to the agency to keep these signs in perfect condition as to not cause these types of issues.

How would you mention this within the appeal?

This is a BPA agency.

Redx

use the template appeal in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread for the first appeal

poor and inadequate signage is also a popla appeal point , as noted in post #3 of that same thread

ppsigning

Should I add onto that template of the incorrect main signage confusing customers and send them photo evidence or just leave it for the popla?

Redx

leave it for popla

ppsigning

(Apologies I will let the previous thread die)

Hi,

I am up to the POPLA Stage of my appeal and wanted to have some advise from people more experienced than myself.

I have read through the signage template in the FAQ and it is almost perfect for my case.

However I had another great scenario to use against them but cannot see any precedent or legal background for this.

Basically the main sign as you enter the car park had graffiti on it to make it look like a 3, instead of a 2.

TPS have sent me a picture showing it has no graffiti on it and even stated in their reply to me that it had no graffiti on it, however I have picture proof that it did on the day I was there.

Is there a great way to word this or any legal standing for this? I tried going through POFA but could not see anything directly relating to this, but I feel like this would be massive for my case as surely it would be up to them to keep it maintained and accurate.


For the purpose of one thread RedX stated the below

Redx wrote: »

your best bet is to draft a typical appeal based on POFA2012, no landowner authority , signage , not the same as beavis , BPA CoP failures etc

once it is drafted , post it on here for critique

then any issues or additions to points about signage etc will be pointed out to you

until you post your draft, nobody will second guess what it says or advise you on something they cannot read

use several appeal points , not just signage

pm soolin or crabman and ask them to merge the 2 threads into one thread

Yes I am in the process of writing a draft, I just wanted specific advise on where to go for this graffiti issue. I am including all of that other stuff within the draft, but I did not know where to go for this graffiti issue as it does not seem that POFA 2012 covers this and I wanted to already have a legal base in my first draft to build off

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 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

Have an extra appeal point that the entrance sign is so badly graffiti covered in March/April 2018 that the driver read the free parking hours offer as '3 hours'. See image below:

HERE IN THE APPEAL DOCUMENT, EMBED THE IMAGE WITH THE DATE ON THE PHOTO

Also upload your original image of the photo to POPLA as well as your appeal, so they can look at the original photo and date it was taken (make it obvious to POPLA where to look to see when the photo was taken, don't assume they will).

ppsigning

Took out the images I will be adding in, and need to add a sentence about the image in of the graffiti in question.

It is mostly just a copy and paste job of the templates, but i've tried to reword specific parts to make it more towards my case.

Added in my own section on the graffiti, and have a lot left to reword. But here is draft 1.

Appeal re POPLA code:

I am the registered keeper and will be making this appeal against Total Parking Solutions from the date at car park. I was NOT the driver.

Below are the points of which explain how I am not liable for this parking charge.

• The signs in the car park have insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
• The main sign stating the max stay length was graffitied to show an incorrect value
• There is no evidence of Landowner Authority by TPS.

I will be going into drastically more detail for each point below, starting with;

• The signs in the car park have insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

My first appeal point is based upon the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and discusses the clarity of which is required to make a motorist aware of the parking charge they are said to have agreed to. The specific wording of the act is that the driver needs to have been given !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; of the charge and POFA itself defines !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; as follow:

''(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, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

Because of the above it should be seen that there was no contract, nor agreement, on the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; by the driver as it is unreasonable to expect them to have seen or read the terms that involve this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar !!!8216;ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis!!!8217; case.

In the above mentioned Beavis case the signs were unusually clear and have no relation to the illegible signs used in this specific appeal case. The Supreme Court will indeed keen themselves to make it clear that the Beavis decision was specific only to that car park and those facts alone.

In the Beavis case the £85 charge was in a large font size, had a contrasting colour background and included legible, fairly concise and unambiguous terms. These !!!8216;large lettering!!!8217; signs were located not only at the entrance but were also located in several places around the car park.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

(link)

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

In this case the signs are not immediately obvious to show the parking terms as the wording is mostly illegible due to the small font, large blocks of text crowding and cluttering the terms, and containing a lack of white space as a background. I would appeal that it is objective truth that placing letters too close together in order to increase the amount of text in a small area can severely reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.



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

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

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

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

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

(link)

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

(link)

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

(link)

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

(link)

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

2. The main sign stating the max stay length was graffitied to show an
incorrect value

My second point is similar to my first in that there was an issue with the signage, however this is specifically pointed towards the lack of care that Total Parking Solutions had with maintaining their signage causing it to be confusing and unclear via graffiti.

The main entrance sign for this specific car park contained, on the day of the alleged charge, graffiti that was intended to make the !!!8220;2 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY!!!8221; appear to state !!!8220;3 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY!!!8221; instead.

While Total Parking Solutions have sent me pictures of the entrance sign showing no graffiti this was over a week after my stay within the car park and was taken from an unreasonable angle and distance, compared to what you would normally see this sign at.

I have included my own pictures that show the graffiti on the sign, and also at an angle and distance that any motorist would see the sign at.

The position of the sign also leads to illegibility, due to the nature of the corner leading into the car park it is placed on a sharp and cramped corner where you must perform almost a complete U-Turn of car direction, while also having to read the alleged contracted terms of the car park. See image below of the corner.


















I would conclude that because of the location of the sign you have no more time than for a mere glance at the terms and condition, of which it would not be unreasonable, to state the graffiti would very easily appear to look like a !!!8220;3!!!8221;.

3. There is no evidence of Landowner Authority by TPS.

My third and final point is that this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land and that 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

Coupon-mad

Are you sure the NTK was received by day 15 and is fully compliant in wording? If in doubt, bung in the template about the appellant not being show to be the individual liable.

Also, if this was ANPR ticketing by post, add on the end the new long appeal point (which I think I've added in the NEWBIES thread a few weeks back, tell me if not) about the PPC not complying with the ICO rules about ANPR and surveillance camera data protection regulations, and not telling you about your rights to subject access.

Find an example of that point, by searching the forum for ICO ANPR guinea pig as keywords, where I replied to the first person to include it in a POPLA appeal recently!

Remove the inapplicable words here: or 'genuine resident'

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' [STRIKE]or 'genuine resident'[/STRIKE] exemptions

ppsigning

Yes it was received within day 15 and as far as I can see TPS have cleaned up their tickets since last time as previous cases had different wording.

Sorry what is an ANPR Ticketing by post?

Coupon-mad

Google ANPR.