Civil Enforcement Ltd - Number Plate Registration System, not used

Ralph-y

" I want to contest this on the truth"



do you think the PPC cares ?



read and watch the below to start to understand the scam you are caught up in .... follow the advice given here re popla ... do not send anything with out getting it checked here .... or you rick the chance to kill this off before court.


https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

and slightly longer, the committee stage

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

and some quotes from the committe stage

"The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye" " is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. " "They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies." "Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies." "The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system." “I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)” "The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever," " It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not” "The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes this is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS" "what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors firms that profit, often in shady ways" " the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch" "tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition" "BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month" "They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified." " because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details."

All from Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting) Hansard




good luck


Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

However, I want to contest this on the truth - i.e. I was a paying cutomer, the principle behind the parking rules is to protect the car park from exploitation from non customers, staff did not remind customers to input their numberplate onto the registration system.
Sadly, I can't find a case like this on MSE forum, even though I know there are many.

You will lose at POPLA with that approach. You need more.

No-one is telling you to state untruths. You can certainly start by 'setting the scene' for POPLA, mainly saying that no-one told you to input your registration and if there was a keypad and signs inside the pub, they were not prominent and would be a fundamental (and potentially detrimental to pub customers) part of the alleged contract, so must be (Lord Denning stylee) effectively in your face, with clear and obvious terms that are: 'in red ink with a red hand pointing to it'.

To understand how to word that point, search the forum for Denning Spurling v Bradshaw.

I was neglectful not to enter my number plate onto electronic system (apparently there are clear signs about this on the doors)

I've never been there but - no you were not, and no there were not!

We all know what CEL have done here...do you see how the scam works now and have realised that the words inside the pub are deliberately obscure and hidden and no more eye-catching than the name of the proprietor over the door, that no-one has cause to read?

So your first para should be as above, set the scene, NO words about accepting you did anything wrong/were negligent (OMG, wise up, this wasn't your fault, it is a deliberate trap).

Then add the usual template appeal points from the NEWBIES thread:

- unclear signs

- no landowner authority

- ANPR signs not making it clear as to the commercial purpose of the data capture and how they will use the data, and the unfairness of running two data streams (from the ANPR images and the hidden 'keypad/VRN system') which work in conflict with each other and cause detriment to genuine customers. Against the ICO code of practice, full compliance with which is a requirement of the BPA CoP.

CitizenSteve

Please ignore this _ I found some termplates - brain a bit frazzled.
! Thank you so much - extemely useful.
I'm being thick here but I can't find the templates in the newbies thread - no idea what I am doing wrong. I've ammeded my appeal considerably and will post here once I've got these templates in.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Then add the usual template appeal points from the NEWBIES thread:

- unclear signs

- no landowner authority

- ANPR signs not making it clear as to the commercial purpose of the data capture and how they will use the data, and the unfairness of running two data streams (from the ANPR images and the hidden 'keypad/VRN system') which work in conflict with each other and cause detriment to genuine customers. Against the ICO code of practice, full compliance with which is a requirement of the BPA CoP.

CitizenSteve

OK - my draft appeal letter...
I have written it in the first person as I had already said I was driver on initial CEL appeal.
I have kept in my old arguments just to make it a long document but maybe I should delete these / change the order...
******************
Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the following parking ticket.

Ticket no:
Issued on:
Vehicle reg:
Car park location:

I am writing to formally challenge the above PCN.

On (date) my vehicle was issued with the parking ticket above for the following reason: Car not registered to park.

I am challenging this parking ticket because I am appealing this parking ticket because the amount charged is more than the landowner’s loss, I was a paying customer at the landowners establishment and have proven this, signage was unclear as it was night time and many were not illuminated, the staff did make any attempt whatsoever to explain that I should register my car on the electronic system not how to do it..
At the time of the alleged offence, I was a paying customer of the landowner – Anthology Pub, 2 Swan Street, Wimlsow – Car park signage clearly states that the car park is for customer use. The car park concerned is owned by Anthology Pub, Wilmslow, Cheshire, their policy is that all customers park free if they are paying customers. I spoke to the landlord/manager of the establishment who stated that there is a system for typing number plates into a system at the bar. I have evidence that I was a paying customer hence I feel the charge should not apply even though I was not aware of the electronic number plate registration system at the establishment. I was not aware of this (I am told that there was signage but did not stop to read it) hence did not read the notices instructing to do this but do have bank statements proving that I was a paying customer.
List of evidence available…
1. Screenshots of bank statements (attached as word document)
2. Photographs of car park signage
3. Screenshots from Trip Advisor complaints about lack of clarity regarding the system
4. Screenshots from Trip Advisor of the landowner stating that the Civil Enforcement :Ltd system is in place for the benefit of customers.




The visible text on the signage (photo below) clearly states that car park is for customer use – as evidenced above, I was a paying customer.
You will also notice that there are no light fittings on / adjacent to these signs, at the time my vehicle was in the cap park (as specified on PCN) was 22:15:53 until 23:10:16 – it is too dark to see notice or see these signs clearly at this time of night.


The landowner has a responsibility to ensure that customers are aware of his registration system and how to use it. Both myself and my friend who were customers of anthology Pub were not told or reminded to enter my number plate into the registration system. This issue has been cited by many trip advisor reviews published by customers who feel entrapped by this parking system (many use the word scam)…
The registration system was also not obvious at the bar. This contrasts with establishments who use similar systems in which customers are reminded upon arrival and when ordering at any point of purchase that they need to enter their details into the registration system to avoid parking charges.
Evidence that many customers perceive that the system is not explained clearly can be seen via this we address (link removed as I'm a new user) - screenshots below for quick reference…








The following screenshots are of similar reviews that also include comments published by Anthology in which he claims (repeatedly in comments he has chosen to publish on Trip Advisor) that the system is for the benefit of customers (see screenshots below)





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 removed as I am a new user)

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 removed as I am a new user)
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 I am a new user)
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
(link removed as I am a new user)
''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 removed as I am a new user)
''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 as I am a new user)
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.
Civil enforcement Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

For this reason, I look forward to receiving notification within 28 days that the PCN has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
Apeallant

Coupon-mad

I couldn't see 'no landowner authority' there yet?

The POPLA templates are linked in the third post of the NEWBIES thread. Like your last post above is #15 (top right of the post) I mean the one in the NEWBIES thread with #3 top right, is about POPLA.

CitizenSteve

Hi all - a quick update
CEL have submitted the following...
RESPONSE TO POPLA APPEAL
1. There are many clear and visible signs displayed in the car park advising drivers of
the terms and conditions applicable when parking in the car park. Drivers are
permitted to park in the car park in accordance with the terms and conditions
displayed on the signage. These signs constitute an offer by us to enter into a
contract with the drivers.
They attach photos of the signs - this does not explain why the driver did not notice them - it was dark at time of parking
2. Our Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras recorded the Appellant’s
vehicle, registration number in the car park during the date and time shown on the
front summary sheet of thisonsiderately so the entrance appeal.
this evidence is not being contested by driver
3. There is more than adequate signage in the car park, as can be seen from the
attached site plan. Furthermore, the car park has sufficient lighting and warnings for
the Appellant to have acknowledged the signs, and which the Appellant accepted by
their actions.
There is no evidence that the signage was lit adequately at the time the driver was parked on property
4. We refer you to the Court of Appeal authority of Vine v Waltham Forest London
Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169 which states:
“the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen,
for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which
the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car
driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning”.
5. The nature of the relationship between the Appellant and our company is contractual.
The car park is private land and consequently drivers require permission before
parking on the land. The Company granted permission by way of making an offer in
the signs displayed in the car parks and the Appellant accepted that offer and the
terms set out on the signs by their conduct in parking on the land.
driver is not familiar with this case but was not made aware of entering into any contract
6. As previously stated, there was ample signage throughout the site, such that the
Appellant had an opportunity to read them, including signage at the entrance to the
car park
surely the driver needs to focus on driving safely and considerately so, surely they are not expected to read signage in detail at entrance to a car park whilst driving. Re the other signs, there is no evidence that the driver was parked whre sign could be read in poor light. .
7. The British Parking Association advises all motorists:
“Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or
on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check any
signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules that
apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in order to
acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for parking.”
Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF
Tel: 0115 822 5020
Registered Office as above. Company Registered in England. Company Registration Number 05645677
Page3
the driver is grateful for this advice but was not in receipt of it or aware of it at the time of parking
8. When parking on private land a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by
the conditions of parking, in return for permission to park. Therefore, the onus was on
the Appellant to ensure that they could abide by any clearly displayed conditions.
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - Our Charges
9. The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the recommended British
Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant the BPA code.
10. The Supreme Court, in their judgment of the recent Parking Eye v Beavis appeal,
stated that:
“…the charge does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.”
A summary of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis has been
included in the Operator’s evidence pack, but can also be accessed using the following link:
(unable to post links) supremecourt press-summary(pdf)
I need time to read this in detail before advising driver
11. We submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties’
rights and obligations arising under the Contract. Furthermore, Lord Neuberger and
Lord Sumption asserted the following in the above Supreme Court judgment:
“Any imbalance in the parties’ rights did not arise ‘contrary to the requirements
of good faith’, because ParkingEye and the owners had a legitimate interest
in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay in order to efficiently manage the car
park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets.”
It would therefore be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine preestimation
of loss.
Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF
Tel: 0115 822 5020
Registered Office as above. Company Registered in England. Company Registration Number 05645677
Page4
Additional Notes
The Notice was issued as the Appellant failed to obtain an electronic permit for his
vehicle, registration [drivers number plate]. Electronic permits can be obtained by entering your
vehicle registration on the touchscreens provided inside the facilities. Please note
that the Appellant has admitted to being the driver on the day in question and does
not dispute the duration of stay within the car park.
The driver did see the words "Anthology Customer & visitor Permit Holder Parking Only on the entrance sign - surely this implies that the paying customers are authorised to use the car park free of charge. Other signs in the car park say otherwise, but why would driver read another sign having already read "AQnthology Customer and Visitor Permit Holder Parking Only"? Driver has submitted a photo of this sign. The sign says (in smaller font) "See car park terms and conditions" but is concerned that he would not have time to read all this while driving with due care and attention
13. We refer you to the attached photographic evidence of the vehicle, captured by our
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, entering the car park at
22:15 and departing at 23:10 (total duration of 55 minutes).
14. Signage in the car park clearly states "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY – ANTHOLOGY
CUSTOMERS & VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT ON A TOUCH
SCREEN INSIDE ANTHOLOGY. If you breach any of these terms you will be
charged £100."
other signs in the car park (or to the entrance) do not state that "VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT ON A TOUCH SCREEN INSIDE ANTHOLOGY" - why would the driver (paying customer) read a different sign? Even if he did, the conflicting messages could confuse him
Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF
Tel: 0115 822 5020
Registered Office as above. Company Registered in England. Company Registration Number 05645677
Page5
15. The Appellant failed to register his vehicle, registration [drivers number plate] as can be seen
from the attached report which shows all the vehicles that had obtained a permit on
the day in question. The report also demonstrates that other drivers were complying
with the clearly displayed terms and conditions, and that the touchscreens were in
good working order on the date of violation.
Evidence submitted says that others have fallen into this trap.
(unable to post links)tripadvisorReviews of Anthology - Wilmslow in which many customers have cited 1) Being fned despite being paying customers 2) HAve raied fine with landlord who has allegedly refused to help. It has also been said in parliament that "Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st-century Britain." (unable to post links)parliament debates ParkingCodeOfPractice)Bil[

16. Please note that it is the decision of the mangers of the facilities whether they choose
to advertise the parking terms and conditions on/in their facility. Staff inside the
facilities are not obligated to bring the parking terms to the public’s attention, and we
always advise that drivers refer to the signs in the car park, regardless of any
representations made by a third party (e.g. staff) who was not a party to the parking
agreement.
How do landowners ascertain that customers can read the signage? Does this mean that customers are fined for being unable to read the signs or too pre-occupied to read them? While CEL state that "staff inside the facilities are not obliged to bring the the parking terms to the public's attention" - surely there is some obligation to tell their paying customers. CEL also state that "we
always advise that drivers refer to the signs in the car park" - driver was not aware of or in recepipt of this advice as he does not have a business partnership with CEL
17. The fact that the Appellant was a customer of the facilities does not invalidate the
Notice issued. The terms are clearly stated on the signage, in the event that a driver
fails to adhere to the stated parking terms they will be charged at the Notice level.
Signs clearly state “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY…These terms apply at all times”,
with no exceptions.
I repeat - other signs in the car park (or to the entrance) do not state that "VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT ON A TOUCH SCREEN INSIDE ANTHOLOGY" - why would the driver (paying customer) read a different sign? Even if he did, the conflicting messages could confuse him
18. We refer you to paragraph 3-8 of our response (above) as well as the following
statement made by the British Parking Association, which advises all motorists:
“Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or on-street,
motorists should always park properly and always check any signage displayed to
make sure they know and understand the rules that apply. This is especially so if
they are visiting for the first time - in order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing
Terms & Conditions for parking.”
Drivers have an obligation to check for signage when parking on private land – the
signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where they parked, they
simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance
to read them (BPA Code of Practice, 18.3).
19. Please note that we are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the
Appellant has admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle. Please note that Section
21.6 and 21.7 of the BPA code state that the Operator has up to 28 days to apply to
the DVLA, and once the registered keeper’s details have been obtained, the
Operator has a further 14 days in which to send the PCN.
20. The Appellant’s details as the registered keeper were obtained from the DVLA on
07/06/2018 and the PCN was sent four days later, on 11/06/2018.
PCN:2363889547
Vehicle Registration:[drivers number plate]
Date of Violation:given
Site:Given
Duration of Stay:00:55
Then it's a printout of REPORT OF REGISTERED VEHICLES AT CAR PARK AT
Interestingly - while they black out the number plates - they can still be cut and pasted

CitizenSteve

Anyone reckon I have a case with this?

CitizenSteve

bit the bullet and replied.
will probably go to SCC but you never know

Half_way

What did you say to the pub landlord?

Fruitcake

What did the pub landlord say to you?

What did your MP say?