Blue Badge Private Land Little confused

Coupon-mad

2. i have never received an NTK only an email which i posted here, can you give me some hints on this please?

OK so what did they do, issue a windscreen PCN then you appealed, without saying who was driving? That's good, if no NTK was posted!

Are you near to day 56, counting from the parking event?

Le_Kirk

mc303 wrote: »

1. no i have not sent the images where can i upload please?

1. Use a hosting site such as tinypic or imgur (other hosting sites are available) and post the link like this hxxps://........ and someone will make it live for you.

mc303

singage
to judge the size of the lettering, the face of a brick is 4 inches (they would not upload as portrait)
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2iu9tu/9
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2iw7z9i/9
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/voyi5j/9 shows the vehicle near the sign

thank you

mc303

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK so what did they do, issue a windscreen PCN then you appealed, without saying who was driving? That's good, if no NTK was posted!

Are you near to day 56, counting from the parking event?

that is correct, a windscreen PCN was issued, i never named the driver, i was never sent a NTK , i appealed and was sent a POPLA code

Le_Kirk

Here are your links made live: -

http://tinypic.com/r/2iu9tu/9
http://tinypic.com/r/2iw7z9i/9
http://tinypic.com/r/voyi5j/9

Umkomaas

i appealed and was sent a POPLA code

I've not trogged all the way back through the 100+ posts, but did you use the initial appeal template - unchanged - from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1? If not let us see what you wrote.

i was never sent a NTK

That may become your showstopper at POPLA. But you need to answer fully the questions we ask. We ask for a specific reason, not for wallpaper background reading.

Are you near to day 56, counting from the parking event?

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Here are your links made live: -

http://tinypic.com/r/2iu9tu/9
http://tinypic.com/r/2iw7z9i/9
http://tinypic.com/r/voyi5j/9

Pics 2 and 3. The signs cannot be read from a car length away.

The £100 charge is buried in tiny font.

mc303

I've not trogged all the way back through the 100+ posts, but did you use the initial appeal template - unchanged - from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1? If not let us see what you wrote.

“
i was never sent a NTK
”That may become your showstopper at POPLA. But you need to answer fully the questions we ask. We ask for a specific reason, not for wallpaper background reading.

“
Are you near to day 56, counting from the parking event?

i thought what i have posted was everything to do with not having received an NTK
i waited the 26 days before submitting an appeal to the PPC,
them and my housing association both refused to cancel the PCN
I used the blue template for my appeal
I believe it is 60+ days
so do i also use the signage in my appeal?
thank you

mc303

is this correct?

Dear Sir Or Madam
PCN NUMBER XXX
POPLA CODE XXX

on the day dated on the PCN a registered disabled person Blue Badge Holder went to the vehicle and removed the BB from display, as they were about to leave, an occupant of the vehicle noticed that the community entrance door of their residency was broke, so returned inside to report a fault to their housing association, on returning to the vehicle there was a PCN on the windscreen, as you are aware the BB scheme is null and void on private land,
the operator should also be aware That a disabled person has a right under Equality Act 2010, "reasonable adjustments" and to take account of "protected characteristic" ? that an occupant of the car is disabled and needed extra time in accordance with the BPA CoP.

Please find attached a copy of the Blue Badge

Below are the grounds of my appeal


1. 2010 Equality Act
2. The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority.
4. Inadequate Signage

1) 2010 Equality Act

The Equality Act defines disability in S6.
"A person (P) has a disability if-
(a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and
(b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities." the blue badge scheme has no legal relevance on private land and only has a legal standing for on-street parking, where in fact inspection to its validity and correct use can only be carried out by certain personnel, namely police officers and council civil enforcement officers (formerly called traffic wardens). Even these personnel have no powers of inspection and enforcement under current legislation on private land, so in essence your car parking management agents have no legal powers of inspection.

By using various descriptors of different scenarios of parking on private land, the parking company is beaching the Equality Act by discriminating directly, indirectly and discrimination by connection of a disability (using a blue badge is connected to disability).

Service providers (including Housing Associations) are required to provide "reasonable adjustments" for disabled people,
It is not permitted to harass a disabled person

2) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) The Operator have not correctly transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper for the PCN, No NTK was received

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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant 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 because the fact remains I am only 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.
.
3) 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 un-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier’s 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) 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


4. Inadequate Signage

http://tinypic.com/r/2iu9tu/9
http://tinypic.com/r/2iw7z9i/9

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 have included images of both entrances proving this.

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 - 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:

http://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.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://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.

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/661846322417397760

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of 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, 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.

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:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

http://www.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:

http://www.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 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:

http://www.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.

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.
Regards

Le_Kirk

Better if you embed images rather than links within your appeal as this gives the POPLA assessor no wiggle room and cannot skip over your appeal by ignoring links.