Popla appeal, how to get the ANPR photos?

MRL1981

Hi, I recived a parking fine for a 6 minute stop where the druver stopped in a poorly marked bay, realised it was a pay for parking space and promptly left. This was all captured on camera with photos 30 seconds or so apart. The initial online appeal process showed this photos. I appealed, got rejected and now this photos have been removed from the link/website.

The letter I got notifing me of the rejection states that they will only now communicate through the popla process. I was going to use the photos as part of my appeal as it showed the poor marking at the short period of time. Any ideas how to get them? Or force the company to had them over?

Redx

send a SAR to their DPO by email, requesting all data , docs and photos


bear in mind they will upload them with their evidence pack to POPLA anyway

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

Were there any pictures on the original PCN/NTK that was sent?

In addition to the above advice, start looking at post 3 of the NEWBIES to construct a draft PoPLA appeal. Grace periods will feature prominently in this.

Post the (redacted) draft here for checking before you submit it.

Umkomaas

Which parking company?

Redx

MRL1981 wrote: »

Hi, I recived a parking fine

which moron told you it was a parking fine ?

did they really use that 4 letter F word ?

did the PPC really type that f word on their INVOICE that they sent you ? (I think not, I think you made that part up)

MRL1981

Sorry poor choice of words. PCN not fine. Already read the newbie post and used the template for the initial appeal. Will go down the sar path. Initial ntk had a single picture, I need the rest really.

One parking solutions.

Coupon-mad

The initial online appeal process showed this photos. I appealed, got rejected and now this photos have been removed from the link/website.

No they haven't.

Last week I did a OPS POPLA appeal for someone, and found all the photos to use in the POPLA appeal that I wanted, by going to OPS' website and pretending to want to pay. The next screen shows you all the pics, and you don't actually PAY!

I was going to use the photos as part of my appeal as it showed the poor marking at the short period of time. Any ideas how to get them? Or force the company to hand them over?

Eat your heart out, the pics will help you!

'No grace period' and 'dodgy signs' (using their own pics) as well as the usual 'no landowner authority' will win this at POPLA for you. A driver is allowed time (an 'observation period') to read signs & leave, and POPLA know it.

MRL1981

Hi,

If anyone has time to take a look at this it would be very much appreciated. It is based on a successful appeal i found on here from 2017 that is focused on a grace period. (apologies for posting in a new thread, i have now edit that to read as a duplicate)

In this case the car park is small, 8 bays, with some seemingly reserved for a a particular retail unit that the driver was visiting. it is not clear where the retail bays start or end or if they are also administered by the ppc. The driver parked, realised they were parked outside of the defined retail bays when all the signs be came clear. Left the parking bay but was then prevent from leaving the car park by a delivery truck. Total time in the car park 11 mins, time parked ~5.40sec.

Direct appeal to PPC was rejected (using the stock NEWBIE text), so here is the draft POPLA. I have marked the text in read that is different from the stock POPLA i used and have read.

Thanks for any help or advice you can give.

POPLA code:
Vehicle Registration:

On the x, I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated x acting as a notice to the registered keeper. I appealed to One Parking Solution (OPS) as the registered keeper and received an email denying my appeal dated x. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. Grace period not long enough for the driver to read the signs within the car park
2. The signage is inadequate and unclear
3. That OPS has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court

1. An insufficient grace period has been applied and does not provide enough time for the driver to read the signs within the car park. Additionally there is no grace period defined or indicated on any of the signage. The Notice to Keeper indicates a parked time of 11 mins. However this is factually incorrect 11mins 2secs represents the total time from entering the poorly defined site and leaving the site. The car entered the site at 11:11:12 am, confirmed by Image 1 provided by OPS;

Image 1

The car was parked in a space at 11:13:54 am (Image 12, Image 14 at 11:12:46 am shows that the car is not parked) and the car left the parking space 11:19:27 am (as confirmed by Image 25).

Image 12

Image 14

Image 25

The car was then prevented from exiting by the xx delivery truck from 11:19:27 am to 11:12:12 am, images 25-32. As such the total parked time, during which the signage was identified and read, was 5min 33sec, the total time on the site before exit was attempted was 8min 17sec and the time total within the car park was 11min 2sec. The last time period includes 2mins 45sec of waiting time during which exit was prevent by obstruction. Therefore the issuing of a PCN by OPS is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice(CoP) on mandatory grace periods.

Image 25

Image 32

From the BPA CoP: 13 Grace periods

13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The grace period for Clause 13.3 is undefined but given that a grace period of 10min is considered acceptable for exiting a car park, Clause 13.4, it follows that a 10min grace period would be adequate for Clause 13.2, giving a total grace period of 20mins. In respect to this appeal the parked time, during which signage was identified and read, and the time on site before exit was prevented was substantial less than 20mins

2. The signage is inadequate and unclear

The BPA CoP, (Section 18.2) states:
“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”

There is no clear sign at the entrance to this car park and none visible when turning in. Therefore, to be able to read the additional signs within the car park, the driver must enter the car park.

The parking site is shared with the xx which has the most prominent marking, Image 27, and it is not clear where the bays administered by OPS start or if the xx bays are also administered by OPS. Therefore there is an additional need to for a driver to park, read the signage and understand the layout of the site.

Image 27

Furthermore, 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.

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:


'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' sign

Popla case xxx 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. Additionally there is no ‘P’ or clear indication that the sign refers to parking.

Here, 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. 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.

Additional signs identifying that the site maybe a parking site are present but are not immediately obvious and do not refer to the exorbitant PCN sought by OPS.


Popla case xxx additional signage

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 (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). 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 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:

link...

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

link....

''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.''

''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' 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 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:

link....

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 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.

3. That OPS has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.

I do not believe that OPS has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, OPS must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 states:
“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 contend that OPS merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require OPS to provide POPLA and me with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits OPS to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). If a redacted contract is produced it is unlikely to prove who signed it and when nor prove that authority was in place at the material date.

Redx

spelling mistake , it is substantially, not substantial


otherwise it seems ok to me on a skim read, but perhaps elaborate on FRUSTRATON OF CONTRACT due to being prevented from leaving the car park promptly (in the delivery truck scenario)


and is there a reason for no POFA2012 paragraph ?

Coupon-mad

Yes, add a point going to town explaining why it took slightly longer than the MINIMUM (not maximum!) grace period of ten minutes, to actually get out.

POPLA will consider 11 minutes to be reasonable on your part but ONLY if you paint the picture for them, of delay...in detail, blow by blow, even considering the surface of the car park, narrow lanes in/out, how busy/dark it was, et al.

I don't agree that you had 20 minutes (because you didn't stay) so I would remove this:

The grace period for Clause 13.3 is undefined but given that a grace period of 10min is considered acceptable for exiting a car park, Clause 13.4, it follows that a 10min grace period would be adequate for Clause 13.2, giving a total grace period of 20mins. In respect to this appeal the parked time, during which signage was identified and read, and the time on site before exit was prevented was substantial less than 20mins

Redx

I agree, focus on the frustration of contract being the delivery truck blocking the exit such that the minimum time on site of 10 minutes was exceeded due to the blockage and being beyond the drivers control - paint the picture clearly


do not cloud it by stating 2 grace periods, there was one grace period, the one where the driver decided to leave and could not do so due to those circumstances over which they have no control , but they would have left in under 10 minutes IF that delivery truck was not there , but took an extra few minutes because of the blockage before the exit was clear once more