ParkingEye-Central Station Warrington

uio123

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
Date of Event: 14th September 2018
Date of Issue: 18th September 2018
Date Received: 13th October 2018
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:


The driver entered this area on the night in question, for roughly the time shown on the PCN, in order to wait to collect someone arriving on one of the trains. The train was delayed, which resulted in the driver waiting approximately 20 minutes. During this time the driver did not leave the vehicle.
The driver advises that the area was not lit at all and that the ParkingEye signs were unnoticeable due to the lack of sufficient lighting. In fact, the only clearly lit sign was one that advised a Free Parking of 20 minutes applied. The lack of adequate lighting meant the driver was unable to see or read any ParkingEye Ltd sign within the area. A video, by others showing this lack of lighting proves this point.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptrhxopbtg4mtnz/Central%20Station%20at%20Night.mp4?dl=0 or
https://www.dropbox.com/s/quwmf14krq96ztl/VID_20181126_204441.mp4?dl=0


1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’
The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period…is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 3 weeks after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’ (which ParkingEye never do in any case at all because they use a third party batch-mail system, Whistl or iMail or similar, which adds up to a week before a letter is posted) it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).
This means that ParkingEye have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.


2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. 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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 – they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.

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.''

No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor 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) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence.
I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100.
It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.
Regarding Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance:
“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) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice on ANPR.
It is submitted that this charge was not properly given because it breaches the BPA Code of Practice regarding ANPR which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is ‘appropriate’ before issuing a PCN.
The signs fail to inform a driver what the ANPR data will be used for. Due to it being dark and the signs being unlit, they were unaware of the presence nor the use of ANPR equipment. Also, visiting the area during daylight hours, the signs have a small camera icon on them only, due to the lack of any other information (a black icon showing a camera communicates nothing).
Failure to tell a driver how the data will be used is an ICO breach AND a ‘misleading omission’ of a material fact – prohibited by consumer law, bringing me to my next point:

uio123

5)[FONT=&quot]The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces[/FONT]
The signs and the machine tariff board were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of ‘plain intelligible language’, contrary to[FONT=&quot] the Consumer Rights Act 2015:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]68 Requirement for transparency [/FONT][FONT=&quot](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. [/FONT]
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 and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
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.

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.

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.''

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. [FONT=&quot]It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer as no signs were illuminated. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park:-

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The terms appear to be displayed inadequately at the machine, where only the tariffs are in comparatively large font. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording of the terms, which seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:-

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
As evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:-
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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. However, if you…want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
...and the same chart is reproduced here:-
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.''
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the parking terms should have been simpler and effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear, concise and prominent in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. [/FONT]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.
[FONT=&quot]I further submit that the signage in the area is not legible nor visible whatsoever during the hours of darkness, which is when the alleged offence took place. There is no lighting within the area that enables a driver to know that signage even exists. The clearest sign is when a driver leaves the main street, to enter the area, which states there is a Free Stay period of 20 minutes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/eborp/media/cGF0aDpNb2JpbGUgVXBsb2Fkcy9QXzIwMTcwNDEyXzEzMzEzOV8xX3AuanBn/?ref=[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As evidence of this, please see a video uploaded of the area at night:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I put this operator to strict proof that signage is visible and clear during hours of darkness.[/FONT]


6) No Planning Permissions from Warrington Borough Council for Pole Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage
A search in Warrington Borough Council planning and building control database (LINK) does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for the car park at Central Station, Warrington, WA2 7FW nor does it show any advertising consent for signage.

UK government guidance on advertisement requires:
If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under. It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent;

This clearly proves ParkingEye Ltd is/has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

I request ParkingEye Ltd provides evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (5th February 2019).


7)[FONT=&quot]Proof the Vehicle was Parked[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and whether it was parked at all so as to apply charges for such an alleged event. The Road Traffic Act 1984, Section 46(1) states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]46 Charges at, and regulation of, designated parking places.[/FONT][FONT=&quot](1)Subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act the authority by whom a designation order is made [F1with respect to any parking place outside Greater London ][F2, and not in a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions,] shall by order prescribe any charges to be paid for vehicles left in a parking place designated by the order; and any such charge may be prescribed either—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a)as an amount (in this Act referred to as an “initial charge”) payable in respect of an initial period and an amount (in this Act referred to as an “excess charge”) payable, in addition to an initial charge, in respect of any excess over an initial period, or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b)as an amount payable regardless of the period for which a vehicle is left.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As stated above charges are to be paid for a vehicle left in a parking space and the driver advises that they never left the vehicle as they were waiting to collect a passenger from a train that was due but late.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With the above points taken into account, I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.[/FONT]

uio123

History
14/09/2018 Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
17/09/2018 Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
18/09/2018 DVLA response received - Success
18/09/2018 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
27/09/2018 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
17/10/2018
09/11/2018
09/11/2018
Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
Website appeal processed, please see section E
Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system
(Evidence G)
Letter issued- Unsuccessful POPLA Signage (w/ Camera Information)
18/12/2018 Adhoc Letter Issued - NOPOPLA Final Notice
29/12/2018
11/01/2019
11/01/2019
Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
Website appeal processed, please see section E
Letter issued- Holding Response
14/01/2019 Adhoc Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA Postal Form Response-new popla code
Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan
showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and
conditions of the site.
The facility to pay by phone is also available at this site on the provision of the full, correct vehicle registration
and payment card details.
Evidence G
System generated print out showing that the motorist’s vehicle registration number does not appear in our
systems on the date of the event.
Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence
of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be
enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.
Grace Period
ParkingEye operates a minimum grace period of ten minutes or more on all sites which gives the motorist time
to enter a car park, park, and establish whether, or not, they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of
parking.
A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 30.2
of BPA code of practice which states ‘If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you
must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is
taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
Further Information
ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA)
regulations.
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised
in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background.
As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the many signs in the car park
visible. (Please see Section F).
Please be advised the signage photos provided by motorist, are not for this site.

Coupon-mad

Did they include a witness statement or landowner contract?

uio123

Hi Coupon-mad,
No they did not include a witness statement nor contract.

Coupon-mad

Then you win!

Your comments need only point to the fact they failed to prove landowner authority.

uio123

As this is really my one and only opportunity to rebut ParkingEye's evidence, I thought it best to throw the kitchen sink at it and rebut what I could rather than the landowner authority only.


Here is my rebuttal evidence to POPLA, which I would appreciate some comments on before submitting, please.


To Whom It May Concern,
The following are responses to Parking Eye evidence, where numbered sections are original POPLA appeal sections and sub-sections (letters) are ParkingEye evidence followed by appellants rebuttal to Parking Eye evidence.
1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
a. Operator evidence, page 5, History [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT]
14/09/2018 Date of event
‘System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
17/09/2018 Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
18/09/2018 DVLA response received - Success
18/09/2018 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
27/09/2018 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217’
b. Rebuttal - As submitted in POPLA appeal that NTK did NOT arrive within permitted 14-day period as it was received 13th October 2018. It can only be assumed, that this was the 2nd Parking Charge letter sent 27th September 2018 and that the letter issued 18th September 2018 was not received. Therefore, keeper liability can NOT apply as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).
2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
a. Operator evidence, page 5, Authority [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT][FONT=&quot]‘[/FONT]It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal…’
b. Rebuttal [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT] As submitted in POPLA appeal [FONT=&quot]“…[/FONT]No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor 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) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
a. Operator evidence, page 5, Authority [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
b. Rebuttal [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT] As submitted in POPLA appeal [FONT=&quot]“…[/FONT]I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract).[FONT=&quot]”[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT] No such evidence has been provided by the operator.
4) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice on ANPR.
a. No operator evidence provided to this appeal point.
5) The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
a. Operator evidence, page 6, Further Information [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background. As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the many signs in the car park visible. (Please see [FONT=&quot]Section F[/FONT]). Please be advised the signage photos provided by motorist, are not for this site.”
b. Rebuttal [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT] The operator can NOT rely on the headlights of a vehicle to provide the necessary illumination for their signage. By making such a statement it can be assumed that they are admitting the illegibility of their signage due to no lighting of their own. The sign provided in the appeal is on the boundary of this site and is misleading to which land it applies and one close by has NO operator logo on at all [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT] See https://imgur.com/4ztKqzp

6) No Planning Permissions from Warrington Borough Council for Pole Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage.
a. No operator evidence provided to this appeal point.
7) Proof the Vehicle was Parked.
a. No operator evidence provided to this appeal point.
I therefore respect request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

nosferatu1001

Far too long
You have 2000 characters
Just keep it simple!

1) the operator has not provided a contract or a witness statement and as such they are in breach of the BPA CoP. The appeal must be upheld.

Coupon-mad

Seconded. Point the Assessor to the winning point.

uio123

Hi All,
Thanks for all your help so far. I pointed the assessor to the winning point as advised and that was 2-weeks ago and still no news.
Does it normally take POPLA this long to reach a decision?
Or are they, as I fear, going back to Parking Eye and giving them another chance to produce requested evidence?