Britania Parking PCN - inappropriate display parking ticket ?

Alexa777

@castle

Is that mean whats on the ticket can not overides the larger pay and display signage ?

My understanding of the Thornton v Shoe Lan Parking case indicates the ticket can overides the larger signage ?

Would you please be more specific ?

Thanks in advance !

Castle

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking:-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html

Alexa777

Quentin wrote: »

No

You cannot be compelled.

(They will likely continue with their view of course)

Are you sure about the initial appeal - do you have a copy to check yourself you never revealed the identity of the driver?

Hi,

No, I drafted the claim letter by the template provided from the newbies thread and followed the process advised.
No additional comment but only the pdf version of my letter as the keeper and the photo of the ticket.
Also Britannia's letter indicates who is the driver as the claim posted before they issue the NTK (which never been received).
Hence I am sure I did not reveal who is the driver.

Thanks.

Alexa777

@castle

Hi,

Thanks for the detailed info.
My understanding is when the driver saw the obvious signage and get the ticket, the driver only acknowledge what's on the signage but not the small writing of the full terms and conditions.
Small writing failed the reasonable notification ?

Also the ticket was issued by an automatic machine, the driver has no chance to negotiate the terms
The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise.

Quote "The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid."
This also indicates what written on the ticket can not overrides the significant signage ?

Would you please advice my understanding is correct and can be used in my comments ?

Thank you.

Castle

Thornton v Shoe Lane was about terms being introduced after the contract had been concluded:-
"He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. The contract has already been made: see Olley v. Maryborough Court (1949 1 K.B. 532). The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case, Chapelton v. Barry U.D.C. ...1940 1 K.B. 532), on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued".

This is further supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Paragraph 10 of the unfair terms schedule 2.


The BPA code requires them, (under 20.5b), to do a visual check of the dashboard and windows; (note the plural of window).

Alexa777

Castle wrote: »

Thornton v Shoe Lane was about terms being introduced after the contract had been concluded:-
"He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. The contract has already been made: see Olley v. Maryborough Court (1949 1 K.B. 532). The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case, Chapelton v. Barry U.D.C. ...1940 1 K.B. 532), on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued".

This is further supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Paragraph 10 of the unfair terms schedule 2.


The BPA code requires them, (under 20.5b), to do a visual check of the dashboard and windows; (note the plural of window).

Thanks a lot !

The big sign at the entry is written "Pay & Display(Extra Large Size) Terms and Conditions apply, see notices in car park for more details(Large Size)".
Does this mean they can get away from the Thornton case ?
I couldn't quite get my head around it.....

Alexa777

Redx wrote: »

all of the above

they have to abide by the BPA CoP and so appear to have failed that point mentioned above

only POPLA or a judge in court can tell you if that small print on the ticket overrides the larger pay and display signage

but as the driver paid and displayed as per the signage contract, there was no intention to defraud the PPC and so a judge might decide that its an onerous term and that the drivers intentions were honourable, meaning that the PPC should have cancelled when they were notified that a valid ticket was purchased

this is known as de-minimis , so google it

so get all of them points into a 2000 character rebuttal and then post the proposed rebuttal so it can be checked

Hi !

I gathered a couple of points but seems over 2000 character...
Is there any way I could make it shorter but still include all the details please ?

1. Britannia has provided no evidence that they correctly transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper nor that PoFA was followed correctly.

2. Britannia failed to provide NTK as no NTK ever received by the keeper nor in their evidence pack. This is in my original appeal where Britannia didn’t challenge then they are deemed to agree with this point.

3. Britannia is drawing assumptions as to the identity of the driver in this evidence pack, however this is has never established and they have no evidence as to who was driving.

4. Britannia failed to provide evidence of Landowner Authority. This is in my original appeal where Britannia didn’t challenge then they are deemed to agree with this point.

5. Britannia as a member of BPA failed to adhere to the Code of Practice Appendix B20.5b quote “In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows”. The photos show the attendant failed to check all the side windows.

6. Signage – The specific requirement of displaying ticket on the dashboard is only written on the parking ticket where the large “Pay & Display” signs are all over the car park.
- Britannia failed BPA CoP Appendix B18.3 quote “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”. As shown in the photos that the Conditions of use written on the top of the ticket machine did not meet the CoP requirement of the text size.
- Britannia claimed in the statement quote “All tickets dispensed at this site state “DISPLAY CLEARLY ON DASHBOARDTHIS SIDE UP” in addition to showing the issue and expiry times”. According Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking, the driver is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. This is also supported by Olley v. Maryborough Court (1949 1 K.B. 532) quote”The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case, Chapelton v. Barry U.D.C. ...1940 1 K.B. 532), on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued".

7. The driver had obtained and displayed as per the signage contract, there was no intention to defraud the PPC.

Thank you very much !!! in deed !!!

KeithP

Once the contract is formed it cannot be altered without the agreement of both parties.

What Thornton means is that having agreed to the terms of the contract, the PPC cannot alter those terms without the driver's agreement.

One of the terms that the driver agreed to was that the ticket must be displayed.

When the driver received the receipt from the ticket machine, that ticket attempted to vary the contract by stating exactly where the ticket should be displayed. Varying the contract in that way after payment had been made, and thus the contract formed, is simply not acceptable.

That means that the driver displaying the ticket in a side window is acceptable simply because the agreed contract did not specify exactly where the ticket should be displayed.

Alexa777

KeithP wrote: »

Once the contract is formed it cannot be altered without the agreement of both parties.

What Thornton means is that having agreed to the terms of the contract, the PPC cannot alter those terms without the driver's agreement.

One of the terms that the driver agreed to was that the ticket must be displayed.

When the driver received the receipt from the ticket machine, that ticket attempted to vary the contract by stating exactly where the ticket should be displayed. Varying the contract in that way after payment had been made, and thus the contract formed, is simply not acceptable.

That means that the driver displaying the ticket in a side window is acceptable simply because the agreed contract did not specify exactly where the ticket should be displayed.

THanks KeithP !

May I ask does the "pay & display" (which means ticket can be displayed anywhere in the car) terms still apply even there is a line written on the same signage "Terms and Conditions apply, see notices in car park for more details" ?

KeithP

You tell me.

I think you said it earlier, but what does the sign say about displaying the ticket?
If it just says 'display', then you can display it anywhere you like - but it must be displayed.
It is that what counts.

Anything printed on the receipt cannot restrict terms already agreed.