Wing ticket advice

DisneyB

Looking for some advice on a parking charge notice from Wing who are working on behalf of my local council

Stupidly when appealing I hadn’t realised it was one those stupid ‘invoice’ type tickets and I shouldn’t have admitted it was me driving and my car but I filled in my details as requested when raising the appeal for the genuine reason, stupid I know but done now. Anyway, I’ve lived on my estate for years now, always displayed my valid permit and had no previous tickets from parking here, I’d got a new permit recently and hadn’t fixed it to my window screen, on this particular evening I had rushed from the car due to an emergency and until the next morning it had completely slipped my mind I’d forgotten to display my new permit and of course, ticket recieved.

I’ve appealed to Wing whose reply quite frankly seemed very standard and like they’d taken no notice of my reasons, same again at stage 2 when appealing to my local council, now my options are pay up which I’m thinking of doing as at the end of the day I didn’t display my permit but I begrudge paying £60 fine to some crappy company for parking on my own estate when I did have a valid permit, so I have the option to go down the POPLA route, do you experts think it’s worth it or should I just pay up at this point? If I do appeal to popla, do I state the same reasons are my previous 2 appeals? Also annoyingly, despite the council saying I had 14 days from the date they sent their reply to pay £60 rather than £100, when I log in to the Wing invoice section with details of the fine/ticket it’s already asking for £100 when the 14 days are not up for another week

Thanks in advance for any help/advice

waamo

At the top of this board is a thread that tells Newbies to read it first. Throughout that thread it tells you to appeal to POPLA.

It contains links to appeals and templates for you.

Coupon-mad

annoyingly, despite the council saying I had 14 days from the date they sent their reply to pay £60 rather than £100, when I log in to the Wing invoice section with details of the fine/ticket it’s already asking for £100 when the 14 days are not up for another week

That's not annoying, it's good because it stopped you pointlessly paying Wing!

No-one here pays them, not even if you lose at POPLA.

You know, I guess, by now, that you threw away the 100% slam dunk winning POPLA point, because Council land is not 'relevant land' and you could not have been held liable as long as they didn't know who was driving...remember that next time you get one from Wing, when your permit slips down or whatever jumped up excuse they use to issue a PCN.

my options are pay up which I’m thinking of doing

Nope, not an option - not needed - don't do that, not even if you lose at POPLA.

Search the forum for Wing POPLA and see versions people wrote this year or in 2017, and plagiarise them (remove the winning POFA 'keeper liability' point though as that baby was thrown out with the bathwater of your appeal...).

And read the third post of the NEWBIES thread where the POPLA templates are.

Did your car have an old permit displayed, or no permit at all?

If an old permit, did it have an expiry date on it, or did it appear 'valid'?

Can you show us a sign please, there may be mileage for an argument that no contract was actually offered to drivers of cars displaying no permit. Go and get a photo in the same light at the time of night they swopped with the PCN and show us a link in Dropbox.

As a NEWBIE, you will have to break the link.

I repeat (because I am fed up with newbies not reading this fact, then bleating that ''the forum doesn't let me post a link''):

As a NEWBIE, you will have to break the link. Change http to hxxp, or add gaps.

DisneyB

Thank you so much, you’re right that was a good thing because when I logged in I had my card ready to just hand over the money and pay.

My old permit, with expired date (a month previous) was still in my window screen, will try my best to take a photo of the sign tomorrow, however they’re high up and as you can imagine, print is small and being short makes it hard to see clearly, although there is one when i log into see the ‘evidence’ for the parking ticket so I can hopefully save that image, thanks again

waamo

Even if you lose the odds of court look good http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Wing_Parking.html

Coupon-mad

Never seen a Wing court case that I can recall, in 10 years on parking forums.

Do show us a broken link to an image/photos of the signage wording so we can read it.

DisneyB

Here is the image of the sign they’d taken on the day, I’ll attempt to get a better one myself because as you can see it’s pretty unreadable
hxxp://ww w.dropbox. com/s/hw5v9o0k9b3nz3l/Photo%2012-09-2018%2C%2023%2015%2010.jpg?dl=0

Also I checked my appeal email and I didn’t actually admit to being the driver, I appealed as the keeper and left all driver details empty, I did however state in the appeal that I was in the car, not sure if I’m clutching at straws there?

Going to put the Popla appeal together tomorrow, is it worth adding in about the breaking the equality act? As my reason for hurrying from the car which resulted in me forgetting to display my new permit was due to medical reasons and my disability so surely they should be making reasonable adjustments and taking into consideration my disability was technically the main reason I’d not displayed my valid permit, even the council ignored this despite a full explanation

Coupon-mad

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hw5v9o0k9b3nz3l/Photo%2012-09-2018%2C%2023%2015%2010.jpg?dl=0

Seems to me that you would be saying to POPLA that:

The £100 was not known nor 'agreed' and was never mentioned as a stated 'contractual sum of £100' in any communication from the Council when permits were supplied. I have always displayed my permit and it was displayed on the day and was valid for that estate.

Even if new permits had just been issued, at no point was there 'adequate notice' that failure to swap one valid estate permit for the next one immediately, would result in £100 penalty, which is purely set to punish and catch out genuine residents.

The £100 is positively buried in small print on a wordy sign with stickers added to it, which is placed on a pole so high that even the operator's own evidence photo embedded here:

EMBED IMAGE DIRECTLY INTO THE APPEAL DOCUMENT TO ILLUSTRATE

...shows that the person taking the photo struggled to bring it into focus and the operator's photos also show the ambient lighting was poor/overcast and there are no lights on the top of (or pointing at) those poles. Certainly headlights would never reach that high to pick out the tiny font which is presumably about £100 or a contract!

Such signage is a poor example of unlit signs with the parking charge sum hidden, which is contrary to the BPA Code of Practice and nothing like the sign in the Beavis case where the £85 was in the largest lettering and outlined in a different colour, in a brief and clear sign:



...then continue with the usual template POPLA appeal point about signs, which has the Beavis sign image for you to embed as a comparison!

Then add the other POPLA template about 'no landowner authority' (even though you've had to go through the second stage appeal!). It's Wing's case to prove to POPLA so make them work.

Such a shame this is not the easy win it should have been but so what if you lose, no-one here ever PAYS Wing, and this is not a proper Council PCN!

DisneyB

Here is my first draft for my Popla appeal, any tips on what needs adjusting/adding etc would be very much appreciated -

Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: xxx
POPLA Verification Code: xxx

I write to you as the registered keeper of vehicle registration number: XXXX, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice issues by Wing Parking for the following reasons

The signs in the car park are not prominent
No evidence of landowner authority

The £100 was not known nor 'agreed' and was never mentioned as a stated 'contractual sum of £100' in any communication from the Council when permits were supplied. I have always displayed my permit and it was displayed on the day and was valid for that estate.

Even if new permits had just been issued, at no point was there 'adequate notice' that failure to swap one valid estate permit for the next one immediately, would result in £100 penalty, which is purely set to punish and catch out genuine residents.

The £100 is positively buried in small print on a wordy sign with stickers added to it, which is placed high on a pole so high that even the operator's own evidence photo embedded here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hw5v9o0k9b3nz3l/Photo%2012-09-2018%2C%2023%2015%2010.jpg?dl=0

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:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

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

In this case, the signs are 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, even the person taking the photo struggled to bring it into focus and the operator's photos also show the ambient lighting was poor/overcast and there are no lights on the top of (or pointing at) those poles. Certainly headlights would never reach that high to pick out the tiny font about £100 or a contract!

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. 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.

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 unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

I look forward to your response

Yours faithfully

DisneyB

anyone have any pointers for my popla appeal, please?

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except I suggested this paragraph followed after your image of the Wing sign, otherwise the paragraph preceding it doesn't make grammatical sense:

...shows that the person taking the photo struggled to bring it into focus and the operator's photos also show the ambient lighting was poor/overcast and there are no lights on the top of (or pointing at) those poles. Certainly headlights would never reach that high to pick out the tiny font, which is presumably about £100 or a contract.