Parking ticket NTK recieved

UKPC

Sorry I just found that and was coming back to edit my post! just reading now

UKPC

I'm most likely looking at signage size etc, but am I best putting in more (it looks like a road with double yellows and parked where there were none)
This is what I am thinking of going with though:
moneysavingexpert etc
/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341
(had to break the link up due to site restrictions)


(It was daylight, but the signs were small and about 50m from the car and up on poles)

UKPC

Just been reading lots of forum posts - some go back to 2016 - The driver has never been admitted, I do have a NTK sent in the correct time frame. It does reference the POFA so am I correct in thinking that this is not a defence?

UKPC

Apologies for multiple posts, the pc won’t let me post a picture to the post and now banned my ip address. So on my phone now and it won’t let me edit. The paragraph says “if the amount requested has not been paid in full (or been informed of the drivers name and address) you, the registered keeper under the terms of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 will be liable to pay the unpaid parking charge”

So my question is, is this all correct leaving me no room to get out of? If so should I just appeal to popla in unclear signage? What are my chances with this route?

Thanks

UKPC

In other popla appeals they mention permission from the landlord. Do I need to call the landlord and find out myself or do the ppc need to prove they have it if I call them out on it?

MistyZ

UKPC wrote: »

In other popla appeals they mention permission from the landlord. Do I need to call the landlord and find out myself or do the ppc need to prove they have it if I call them out on it?

As far as I know the 'Landlord Authority' point comes as standard so yes, you are demanding proof and should include this.

UKPC

Can you give me guidance if this is ok, there’s no details in it and I will add the photos if it’s ok.

POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxxxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – UK Parking Control LTD (UKPC) – was rejected via letter dated x 2018. I contend that, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:


1. 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
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
3. No Evidence of Period Parked – notice to keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1. 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

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:
imgur.com/a/AkMCN

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. Figure 1 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
Figure 1: Beavis sign


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.

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.
UKPC’s sign is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text in tiny size that must be read (see figure 2)
(insert pic here of zoomed sign)
Figure 2: UKPC sign at The X Park, Zoomed picture, taken by appellant

This area is not a car park, but looks like a public highway with double yellow lines, the car was parked in an area with no double yellow lines so one would naturally assume that you could freely park there and would not look for parking signs. On returning to look for signs Figure 3 and 4 show signs(pics of signs very far away) at such a distance and height from the car as to be almost impossible to see. Figure 5 shows lack of double yellow lines.

The image in Figure 6 shows a close up of the main gates to the industrial estate in similar lighting conditions as the date/time for which the parking charge notice was issued. (N.B. This image was taken whilst standing at ground level and not driving, as on initially entering the industrial estate, one would be driving.

For the image in Figure 2 the camera was held above head height and digitally zoomed in 4x so as to capture as close an image as possible, therefore it cannot be assumed that this is the view a person would have when standing below the sign. It should be emphasised that, when viewed from ground level, the text is even more difficult to read than it is in Figure 2). See fig 7 showing sign approx12 foot from the ground and which company does the parking?

There is a car park and figure 8 show it to be run by another company, however the vehicle was not parked there.

Figure 7 shows the view whilst standing at ground level looking up from a similar position as Figure 2, giving some context to the size/location of the sign shown in Figure 2. The camera was held at the eye level of a person around 6 Feet tall. Figures 2,3,4,7 show clear evidence that:

• The sign is positioned high on a pole, making it difficult to read.
• The text for “£100 parking charge” is hidden in a long text paragraph with small font size, making it difficult to notice.

Figures 2,3,4,7 show clear evidence that:
• The sign is difficult to notice while parking and walking on the road/pathway
• The sign uses small letters which is difficult to read for car parking users
• The sign is positioned on top of other signs such road speed notice, which is clear and serves as a distraction.

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.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLAdecision 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.

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''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:

ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''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 elsewhere in the site 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 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 authorised, permit displaying 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, right next to every visitors parking area stating the maximum parking period allowed for visitors.

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:

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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.

Yet the car was not even shown by UKPC to be parked anywhere near any terms at all. UKPC’s notice to keeper only provides one photo, as shown in Figure 8 (no signs visible). The photos did not show any UKPC sign at all. Not even the name of the roads where they were taken.


Figure 8: UKPC’s notice to keeper photo No.1


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.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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 POPLAAssessor 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.''

3. No Evidence of Period Parked – notice to keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

UKPC’s notice to keeper contains only one photo, as Figure 8 shows the vehicle parked on a non-double yellow line part of road”. At no stage do UKPC specify the road name/location where these pictures were taken. UKPC’s notice to keeper failed to show evidence where the vehicle was parked.

Figure 8: UKPC’s notice to keeper photo No.1

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to keeper to: “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

UKPC’s notice to keeper simply claims “the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.” There are no markings of a bay or space on the road.

The notice to keeper separately states that “Parking charge Date xxxxxxxx,”. At no stage do UKPC explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

It is not in the gift of UKPC to substitute “arrive/departure” or “vehicle duration” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

I require UKPC to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the notice to keeper.

4. 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' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine resident' or any 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do.

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 for visitor permit holders 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


This concludes my POPLA

UKPC

Can I get some help please as I have to do this by the 24th December.

Thanks

Le_Kirk

You should put your strongest appeal point first and then order them in descending order of importance. You should embed pictures in the appeal rather than including links so that the POPLA operative cannot say they weren't there or the link was faulty.

UKPC

Thanks for the reply, I thought this was in order of importance. I will change the links to pictures though as you say. I was hoping someone could say whether this is a good defence or not? or am I best just paying the fine at £60?