Brittania PPC Newbie post

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Redx

ensure you have a "kitchen sink" popla appeal , including


NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
any BPA CoP failures or non-compliance

POFA2012 non-compliance (if applicable)
ANPR issues etc


and anything else you can use

Taliessa

Ok do I post my POPLA appeal draft here or start a new thread?

KeithP

Do not start a new thread.

Keep everything about one incident in one thread.

beamerguy

Taliessa wrote: »

"If it is ANPR. whose electricity are they using ?"

I have no idea. But you are right it is a very small area outside this parade of shops, you can't even really call it a car park, no parking bays are there, it is really a car parking area that serves those nine businesses and it has been completely free to use until a few months ago.

OK, seriously, the ANPR cameras are plugged in somewhere, you must find that out so must the Raj

The cameras are fed from somewhere

Taliessa

"Keep everything about one incident in one thread."

Ok I will thanks, I will post my draft POPLA appeal here tomorrow.

"OK, seriously, the ANPR cameras are plugged in somewhere, you must find that out so must the Raj"

It wouldn't be the Raj. They have solicitors involved to stop Brittania being there. How do I go about finding out which business feeds the electricity to the cameras?

beamerguy

Taliessa wrote: »

"OK, seriously, the ANPR cameras are plugged in somewhere, you must find that out so must the Raj"

It wouldn't be the Raj. They have solicitors involved to stop Brittania being there. How do I go about finding out which business feeds the electricity to the cameras?

As ANPR are normally on poles, it's tracing the leads from thr cameras. You said it's only the launderette that people can register their VRN so my guess is that one cable goes there.

Talk to an electrician or the electric supply company

Guys_Dad

If the laundrette owns the land, all the bit about the Indian restaurant and their dispute is, sadly, irrelevant to your case. The laundrette could be facing some hefty claim for breaching the restaurant's lease and loss of trade, but not your concern.

You need to home in on signage and any mistake the PPC may have made with process.

Taliessa

"their dispute is, sadly, irrelevant to your case."

Yes, their dispute is nothing to do with me. However the Raj is giving advice to customers who end up with a parking charge AND telling them all nine businesses are responsible for the car park. I have been trying to find out who actually owns the land to no avail.

Also if there is a clause in the landowner agreement that states "genuine customer" surely this would apply to all nine businesses that operate at the parade?

I will post my draft to POPLA here now, it is long.

Taliessa

Ms XXXX XXXXXXXXX
e-mail - XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Date - XXX XXXXXXX

Appeal re POPLA Code:XXXXXXXXXX v Britannia Parking.
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXXXX
Parking Charge Notice Number with Britannia Parking :- XXXXXXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XXXXX acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Britannia Parking - was submitted and acknowledged on XXXXX but subsequently rejected by a letter dated XXXXXX.
I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and are not illuminated at night.
Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location. No contract was therefore in place.

My main point for your attention here is that the driver genuinely did not see the signs which are inadequate for display late at night. The driver entered a car park that the driver has been freely using regularly for over thirty years, so would not be looking for signage, believing the car park to be free to genuine users of the businesses at the parade.
Signs were not illuminated. They were not seen by the driver. 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 time limit itself and of the ANPR cameras in place.
Driver did not see signage on entering car park. Driver parked facing the Raj Indian restaurant and there are no signs that side of the car park at all. There are signs behind the driver over at the other side of the car park but because driver parked facing the other way, these signs were not seen.
In the rejection appeal letter from Brittania parking, they have written :-
"Please be aware that we are under no legal obligation to provide lights in the car park. All of our signage is at positioned so that the reflective coating on the signage, with will be picked up by the vehicles headlights." The grammar mistakes are not mine but are quoted word for word from Britannia Parking's letter.
It is essential for drivers to see signage late at night.

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Brittania suggest that their signage is positioned correctly and that they are coated with reflective coating.
The signs are far too high for headlights to shine upon the signage and I do not agree that these signs are positioned correctly for the average car.
I would also like to see proof from Britannia that the signs are coated with something that would provide a definite 'lighting up' of the sign so as to draw the driver's attention to them. This was NOT the case with the driver on the evening of XXXXXX.
The driver did not see any signage.

Figures A and B show photographs of the signage at entrance and exit points. These signs show how high the signs are in relation to an average sized car and their headlights.
Figure A shows the photograph at the entrance. If a driver enters the car park they cannot see this non-illuminated sign late at night as the sign faces outwards and is not in the immediate view of the driver.
Figure B shows the wording on the signage which states:-
"Camera Controlled 20 Minutes Max Stay. Terms and conditions apply. See notices in car park for more details. Private Land."
I draw attention to the sentence 'See notices in car park for more details.'
Figure C shows a photograph of the car park area. There are no clearly marked parking bays here. Driver, on the date in question, parked facing the yellow railings which face the businesses in the parade. The notices in the car park that provide the 'extra details' were behind the driver and were not seen.
Also in Figure C you can see notices on both sides of the Raj restaurant windows
which clearly state;-

"NO TIME LIMIT FOR CUSTOMER PARKING ".

I have provided close up photographs of this notice in figure E and figure F.
This would certainly suggest that there is a clause within landowner agreement whereby genuine customers are not subject to any parking limitations. I will address this further in my next point which covers landowner authority.

It was the Raj resteraurant that the driver was frequenting on the evening of XXXXX.

BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix states:

“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material."
I will state again that the signs are too high for any reflective material to be visible by car headlights. Sign faces outwards to the road as is shown in figure A and cannot be seen by a driver turning into the car park during the hours of darkness.
The signs are too high and are situated at the entrance, as seen in figure A, on the passenger side of the vehicle, not visible from drivers side, invisible after dark not lit, too high to be lit by virtue of reflecting any vehicle headlights, particularly from a moving vehicle, and the terms and conditions illegible. The wording "See notices in car park for more details," was not seen so the driver was unaware that there were signs inside the car park.
As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.
Taking information from "The Sign Chef" https://www.thesignchef.com/letter-sizing-calculator
when advising customers they state :-
''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.''
They also advise :-
"'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.''
I put Britannia parking to strict proof as to the size of the wording and the lettering on their signs.
I require the operator to provide proof and details of the retro-reflective material being in place, on the signage, on XXXXX.
I require the operator to provide proof that the entrance sign especially (figure A) can be seen adequately in the hours of darkness.
I sumbit that this is not the case.
I submit that the signage in this car park contravenes the BPA Code of Practise which states:-
(18.3): “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in
intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

The driver is a conscientious road user and adheres to parking laws at all times. Under no circumstances whatsoever would the driver have deliberately and knowingly ignored a car parking rule, if the driver had known that rule to be in place.
Britannia operate an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera which photographs entry and exit times. The driver had no idea that this was in place because the driver did not see the signage.
When signage is seen then a contract is entered into between the parking company and the driver of the car. However, as the driver did not see the signage then the contract was not entered into. I dispute this parking charge on the grounds that there was no contract. This makes the charge null and void.
I would also request that I see a copy of the agreement made between Britannia parking and the landowner/landowners. There may be a clause within that agreement that has some allowance made for first time, local users of this car park (who have used this car park freely for years as a genuine customer,) since Britannia began operating here.
If a driver has frequented that car park for thirty years as a regular and valued customer of one of the businesses then they would believe that car park to be free, just like all the other times they have parked there. It may be that a clause within the agreement may allow for this eventuality and I would request that I be able to read this agreement.
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 any parking charges they may incurr. 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''.
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, which is unlit at night and too high for headlights to shine on and is not in place in the area by the parade of businesses - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking time limit, charges or the fact that ANPR cameras are in operation to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the parking time limit at all or that there would be a charge in place if the motorist did not leave within a particular time period, notwithstanding that it takes longer than twenty minutes to order and eat a meal at the restaurant.
It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge that would be incurred if they stayed longer than a required time period.
Upon entering the car park the signs are not illuminated at night and cannot be seen. They are positioned too high for headlights to shine upon the supposed reflective coating. Once entering the car park the signs are sporadically placed and cannot be seen by the motorist at night, in the dark, when facing the opposite way.
Figures G, H and I clearly show how dark it was when the driver entered the parking area.
The driver did not see a sign, the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the driver has frequented this same car park, regularly, for thirty years. The signs inside the car park were obscured as they were not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen, at 10.00pm at night in darkness and read from a driver's seat before parking.
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 this case who had not seen any signs had NOT entered into a contract.
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 require the operator to show how, exactly, that their signs are 'positioned so that the reflective coating will be picked up by the vehicles headlights.' I require the operator to provide information as to what kind of reflective coating has been used and how it can be picked up at 10.00pm in the evening during darkness.
I also require that Britannia Parking submit any contract they may have with the landowner or joint landowner that may have a clause within it regarding long term users of the car park who are 'genuine customers' as they may well be exempt from any charges given. I refer you once again to figures E and F showing the sign upon The Raj's window which says, "no time limit for customer parking."
I submit that full terms of this car park simply cannot be read due to the high positioning at the entrance and the sporadic positioning inside the car park itself and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Britannia Parking.
Basic guidelines of contract law:-
for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated.
Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.