Need help with POPLA appeal for Premier Park Ltd (PPL)

Twig182

Hi everyone,

first: I am not a UK citizen, but got a NTK (not a windscreen PCN) for a 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid' at the Royal Gatehouse Car Park in Tenby, Wales. The PPC was Premier Park Ldt. (PPL) and the car was hired from Europcar at that time.

With the help of this incredible forum I appealed the PCN first at PPL and am now at POPLA stage. I did - to the best of my knowledge - not name the driver.

I'd like to recap all the info here, so I don't miss anything - sorry for the long post in advance!

First of all, I'm quite confused by the NTK itself since I got both, a copy of the NTK to Europcar and a personal one sent to my address , but they differ in wording:

We have issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) xxx to a vehicle you have been named as driving because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at The Royal Gatehouse Car Park, Tenby that we are authorised to manage on the 15th March 2018 at xx:xx. The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park you are bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if you breach these terms and conditions.

Original NTK to Europcar:
'We have issued (...) to your vehicle (...)'

A discounted charge of £60.00 applies if this Parking Charge Notice is paid within 14 days of issue. If you choose to not pay at this amount, the full value of £100.00 will be due.

You have been named as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. The reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is as follows: Parking Session Expired Or Unpaid.

Original NTK to Europcar:
'We have requested you details from the DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle, through the Reasonable Cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding parking charge. (...)'

If you were not the driver (even though you have been named as being the driver) of the vehicle at the time it was parked or if the vehicle was stolen prior to the beginning of the period of parking which is subject of this Notice, please let us know. If you were not the driver we ask you to supply the full name and current serviceable postal address of the driver so that we may address this request to them.

Original NTK to Europcar:
'If you were not the keeper of the vehicle (...)'

We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If within 29 days we have not received full payment, we have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle.

Original NTK to Europcar:
'(...) not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle.'

They especially address me as the driver whereas I referred to myself in my appeal (see below) only as the hirer.
Also, does this give me the possibility to appeal on points of 'No keeper liability'?!

My original appeal to PPL (slightly changed as I thought the MP referral in the complaint section would not fit me):

Re PCN number: xxx

I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the hirer of the vehicle. I deny liability and consider the PCN an absolute disgrace and pure intimidation.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:

1. Please provide dated photos of the signs on site, which you contend formed a contract.
2. Please provide ALL images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.

I will use POPLA (if offered) not the 'IAS' which has been exposed in Parliament as compromised by a conflict of interests with the IPC. The BPA were also heavily criticised and both appeals systems were condemned - hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admitted in recent years to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and saying on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog). Firms of your ilk were unanimously criticised in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam'
(Hansard 2.2.18).

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to Tenby’s Chamber of Trade and Tourism and the Welsh Government. Firms like yours damage the good reputation of the British people and destroy the trust in British law and regulations. I can now clearly see, why Parliament agreed by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Yours faithfully,

XXX

Their first answer was:

Dear xxx,

Re: Parking Charge Notice xxx

We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent online appeal, on behalf of the driver, appealing against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the vehicle.

We note your comments and must refer you to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4 - Recovery of unpaid Parking Charges. This is available to view online at:
LINK REMOVED

We must therefore request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable UK postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN. This information should be provided by 17th May 2018. Please note, Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

If we do not receive this information by the date given, the registered keeper of the vehicle at the date of event will be held liable.

If you would like to view our photographic evidence, please visit LINK REMOVED

Please respond by return or by filling in the Transfer of Liability form on the reverse of the PCN and posting it to Premier Park, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG.


Yours Sincerely

And then finally on May 18th they rejected my appeal:

Dear xxx,

Thank you for your appeal, on behalf of the driver, against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;

No record of a payment or permit could be found for the vehicle registration.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options;

You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following payment options;
Call us on: 01302 513232
Pay online: LINK REMOVED
Send a postal order: Premier Park Ltd, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG

You can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected or you withdraw your appeal, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due.

If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website, LINK REMOVED where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure your POPLA Reference Number, as noted above, is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase until the appeal has been determined.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (LINK REMOVED) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to our appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Unless any additional relevant information or facts are provided, Premier Park Ltd considers this to be their final decision regarding this appeal.
Please note that all payments are subject to a 50p administration charge.

I am currently drafting my POPLA appeal and will post it here the next days - I'd be very grateful if you could check the wording and whether it makes sense.
- as asked above, can I include 'No keeper liability'?
My current appeal reasons would be:

1. Notice to keeper not delivered in compliance with the requirements of POFA
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
3. 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

I did not try to contact the landowner yet as I simply have no idea how this works in UK/Wales. Also, I'd like to avoid making expensive calls for nothing...

Thanks for your help! :beer:

Umkomaas

As you've dragged this away from the hire company you're in a good position.

You say you're not a UK resident - are you permanently domiciled away from the UK (where?), and are PPL communicating with you via post at your non-UK address? If not, how are they communicating?

Twig182

Wow, that was a fast reply

I'm a German resident and was only in UK for a few days / vacation.
Despite the NTK (postal to my German address), the following communication with PPL was done via mail.

Coupon-mad

can I include 'No keeper liability'?

Yes but in fact you would be saying 'no hirer liability', like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5543647/parkingeye-hire-car-popla-appeal

You ALWAYS need a section about 'unclear signs' like in that example.

If you did lose this POPLA appeal, I hope you know NOT to pay it?!

Umkomaas

I'd just tell them to FRO*! They can't touch you if you're a permanent resident of Germany. Just ignore them - after you've told them.

* Fick Gleich Ab (according to Google translation!).

Twig182

Yes but in fact you would be saying 'no hirer liability', like here:
(...)

You ALWAYS need a section about 'unclear signs' like in that example.

Thank you! I will look into it and include it both in the appeal.

If you did lose this POPLA appeal, I hope you know NOT to pay it?!

I am aware, but tbh, I don't know what possible consequences are in my case - they still have the possibility to try small claims, right?

Another questions regarding evidence:
As I'm not in UK/Wales anymore and of course did not take any pictures at all, how can I support my appeal? Do I upload the NTK as attachment at the end of the pdf?
Is it helpful/reasonable to write my situation as German resident in the appeal - or will POPLA not care at all?

You guys are amazing btw. I really hope for the sake of the UK residents, there will be some kind of political change in this matter rather sooner than later...


EDIT to avoid double-post

I'd just tell them to FRO*! They can't touch you if you're a permanent resident of Germany. Just ignore them - after you've told them.

* Fick Gleich Ab (according to Google translation!).

Haha, very well then...
Shouldn't I at least keep them occupied with a POPLA appeal anyway? If only to take time and attention away from other matters. And If I lose, I can still them them to go to hell, right?

Btw: The translation is almost better than what we actually say

Umkomaas

they still have the possibility to try small claims, right?

No, because you are out of jurisdiction of the UK court system in Germany. You are bombproof. Tell them to FGA (FRO)!

Then forget it.

Coupon-mad

And If I lose, I can still them them to go to hell, right?

Yes you can.

Umkomaas

Shouldn't I at least keep them occupied with a POPLA appeal anyway? If only to take time and attention away from other matters.

If you're up for stringing them along (with impunity), you're talking our sort of language (with or without Google translation! ).

And If I lose, I can still them them to go to hell, right?

Yep - and I think that's 'fahr zur Hölle'.

Btw: The translation is almost better than what we actually say

Google still our friend, even in Germany!

Twig182

It's been two weeks, but I'm still up for dragging PPL into a POPLA appeal - if only to take money and time from them so maybe one of you guys has less focus on him... :rotfl:

If the appeal get's rejected, I'll proceed as mentioned above

My first draft looks as follows (pretty much copy and paste with some adaptions on times/dates/etc:

___________

I am the registered hirer and therefore keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from Premier Park Limited at The Royal Gatehouse Car Park, Tenby.

To protect the driver, they have not been named.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:

1)The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
2)The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
3)[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT].
4)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
5)No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable.
6)No evidence of Landowner Authority.




1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.
The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.
Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13 (2) (i.e. ‘(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement’), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company [as Registered Keeper]). The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.
Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:
LINK REMOVED
I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” on page 12 in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:
‘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. […] However keeper information is obtained, 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’.
Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim against me is invalid.




2) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a notice to keeper in full compliance with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier did not comply.
Non-compliance with Paragraph 9 (2) (e)

This Paragraph requires that the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper:
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
Premier’s notice to keeper does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
Non-compliance with Paragraph 9 (2) (f)

This Paragraph requires that the notice must warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given:
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph © or (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

• The notice to keeper is dated Wednesday 11th April 2018.
• 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 “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted.
• If the notice to keeper had been posted on Wednesday 11th April 2018 (which Premier has not proven) it would be deemed to have been given on Friday 13th April 2018.
• The period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given would therefore cover the period from Saturday 14th April – Friday 11th May 2018 inclusive.
• According to Paragraph 8 (2) (f), Saturday 12th May 2018 would be the first day after this period of 28 days i.e. the first day that the right to recover payment from the keeper existed.

The PCN issued states “if within 29 days we have not received full payment, we have the right, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle.”
This is not consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 8 (2) (f) of Schedule 4 of POFA as demonstrated below:
• The notice to keeper is dated Wednesday 11th April 2018.
• Even if it is assumed that the notice was posted on Wednesday 11th April 2018 and even if the date of posting is not counted, this 29 day period referred to in Premier’s notice to keeper would cover the period from Thursday 12th April – Thursday 10st May 2018 inclusive.
• According to Premier, Friday 11th May 2018 would be the first day when it would have the right to recover payment from the keeper

Thus Premier is seeking to claim keeper liability one day too soon.
I draw POPLA’s attention to the reverse of the notice to keeper in which Premier states that “if you would like us to review this Parking Charge, within 29 days of receiving this letter please appeal […]”
With regard to establishing keeper liability, if Premier had intended to claim that it had the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if payment had not been made or the driver’s details not been provided within 29 days of receiving this letter, the notice to keeper would have explicitly said so. However, the notice to keeper did not and POPLA has no right to interpret Premier’s statement "if within 29 days" as meaning that this must apply from the date of service rather than the date of posting.
Non-compliance with Paragraph 9 (2) (i)

This Paragraph requires that the notice must specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
Premier’s notice to keeper merely states a “Date” of 11th April 2018 which may or may not have been the date that the notice was actually sent or given. Therefore, the notice to keeper fails to specify the date on which it was sent or given.

As a consequence of its failure to comply with POFA, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA must determine that Premier’s claim is invalid.
Should Premier try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:
LINK REMOVED




3) 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. 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.'“




[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]

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:

PICTURE REMOVED

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:

PICTURE REMOVED

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 REMOVED
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
LINK REMOVED
‘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 data can also be reproduced here:
LINK REMOVED
‘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 REMOVED
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.
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 REMOVED
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.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[character limit, continuation in next post]

Twig182

[continuation from previous post]

- - - - - - - - - -

Specifically missing from the signs (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside/at the site boundary. It is not stated that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate ‘total stay’ for the purpose of generating profit from PCNs.
In fact, any reasonable driver would believe that they are authorised to park and rely on their own timekeeping. In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as with car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: ‘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.’
and Paragraph 69: ‘Contract terms that may have different meanings’:
(1) ‘If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.’
The driver could never guess that they are responsible for taking into account a period that is somehow back-timed to include a secret timing when the clock started (unbeknown to drivers) from their arrival in moving traffic from the road. If they are, then this must be transparently stated at the entrance and the machine clocks must be set to start a period of parking from arrival, by linking the systems.
Withholding material information from a consumer regarding the ‘time when the clock starts ticking’ and the commercial purpose of the ANPR cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator ‘fails to identify its commercial intent’:
LINK REMOVED

Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ‘A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—!
a. the commercial practice omits material information,
b. the commercial practice hides material information,
c. the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
d. the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.’
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.





5)No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator 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 the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator 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 form 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.
Premier Park has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.






6) 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 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 CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
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

____________________________


I will attach a copy of the NtK, but that's it - I cannot take pictures of the Car Park as explained above.
Will this keep them at least occupied for the time being?


Thanks in advance!