Appealed too soon

nosferatu1001

Because our expereience is that POPLA codes are valid for at least 30 days, which you would know from doing your research.

dd37

I have read the Newbie thread several times. It seems from Page 1 (from 2014) is not accurate (BMPA Insight) so I believe only the top/stickied part to be relevant. Am I missing something as I don't even see information on the 30 days for POPLA or indeed information on how to appeal/word the appeal to POPLA (or doesn't that really matter?). Looking blindly around the forum doesn't help either - I'm trying to find info on making my POPLA appeal and also the railway byelaws at the train station.

I see info in other posts but many are old and further investigation shows the information is now inaccurate. I was relying (as directed) on the Newbie thread for the advice to follow. There is so much info now that to do otherwise is confusing and misleading. I'm not unintelligent so I'm sure I'm not alone on this. Is there a simple flowchart/step-by-step process i'm missing on the forum? In the Newbie thread that I've missed perhaps?

nosferatu1001

The newbie thread is not from 2014. It was updated very recently
Its literally all in there.

dd37

As you can see I mentioned "Page 1" as being from 2014. I realise the Newbie thread (top section) was updated by coupon-mad in April and have read that information.

Yet, I don't see where it details about railway byelaws, or wording/details on appealing POPLA for instance. I have seen that information elsewhere, randomly, and indeed other forums but as for a step-by-step process which I believed the newbie thread was aimed at, no.

Le_Kirk

Are you looking in the right place? This link will take you to the Newbie section and if you scroll down you can see that post #1 was edited 29/04/2018, post #2 06/05/2018 and post #3 18/05/2018 etc

Coupon-mad

Post #3 shows you the template POPLA appeal wording that covers about 5 appeal points typically used, plus links to good POPLA appeals such as byelaws ones and a recent 26 page one.

If I haven't removed the advice to look up 'BMPA Insight' yet (which was working until last month!) it's because I have a VERY busy real day job, real life and family and update it when I can!

Easiest way to find a good Byelaws POPLA appeal is to search the forum for those 2 words, changing the default search to SHOW POSTS (not threads) and only read the most recent results.

dd37

Please be assured, none of this was criticism of you or the forum but in fact (hopefully) helpful comment.

There is a LOT of helpful information but I just felt that in fact it is almost too much information - it was difficult to negotiate even starting from the "Newbies" thread and after the top comments it went onto Page 1 and what was outdated information. That is not a criticism of you, it's more than understandable as I'm sure it changes so so fast. I had looked and had not seen where i should go for POPLA and what my next step is. I'd seen information but your helpful comment above on where to start with POPLA will be very helpful, thanks!

On the "Byelaws" how can I be 100% that the car park is railway byelaws? I assume it will say on the board by the Pay & Display ticket machine but it is a 30 minute drive so can it be looked up online? Is it advisable to write to GreaterAnglia (the train company), or NetworkRail, to find out?

nosferatu1001

Why not try online first?

dd37

Ok, so I've formulated my appeal reply based on the templates within the forum. I will submit this on the due date to POPLA. Summary is below, mostly a cut and paste especially the signs not prominent. The visual evidence covers the permit bay being unclearly marked. The only photos provided by NCP were of the vehicle in a very poorly painted/broken yellow line. I believe this is evidence in my favour, not NCP's as it shows clearly that the permit bay is not clearly marked, at all (effectively unclear signage)

Summary:
Signs not prominant
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
No visual evidence of the alleged contravention provided

Detail - the full work (all 6 pages) is:

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 - 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.

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:
<link>

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.

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.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

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 judgement 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.
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 un-redacted 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

No visual evidence of the alleged contravention provided
No evidence has been provided by NCP - i.e. a photograph of the vehicle showing the clearly marked permit bay in which the vehicle is alleged to have been parked - to support the PCN they have issued. In this case the onus surely falls to NCP to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the claimed breach of their terms and conditions took place, rather than the registered keeper, to prove that the said breach did not take place.

Coupon-mad

These links no longer work so remove this stuff, which I will too, from the template:

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.''

You should assume that you didn't necessarily give away who was driving (unless you chose 'DRIVER' in the appeal box online!) and add in the usual templates about no keeper liability and railway byelaws, like you find in an APCOA railway POPLA appeal, for example. Read a few, your appeal needs more.

Six pages is nothing, there is a 26 page example in the NEWBIES thread!