Parking Eye AFC Telford UTD - Main Car Park

silentvoices

Hi there,

Just wondering if someone can help me in the forum, i have received a parking fine of £100 discounted to £60 within 14 days

i didnt even park at the premises i just used it as a short cut perhaps i am liable cuz of that

here is my appeal to Parking Eye, please kindly help

I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge on behalf of the driver from ParkingEye at AFC Telford UTD – Main

To protect the driver, they have not been named.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:

1. Did not park at AFC Telford UTD – Main
2. Insufficient grace period
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority
4. Inadequate signage


1. Did not Park at AFC Telford UTD – Main

The driver did not park at AFC Telford UTD – Main car park, the driver was went through the AFC Telford UTD – Main car park to the Whitehouse Hotel Telford car park which is absolutely free.

The Whitehouse Hotel Telford car park is adjoined via a metal barrier with the AFC Telford UTD Car Park and the driver was visiting the Whitehouse Hotel Telford and just went through the AFC Telford UTD – Main

At no point was the vehicle Reg no. XXXXXXX was parked at the premises of AFC Telford UTD Car Park

Should the Parking Eye wish to stop people using the adjoining route to the Whitehouse Hotel Telford they should block the way or put metal gates and keep them closed instead of penalising innocent citizens and praying on their hard earned money

Please provide evidence the vehicle in question being parked at the AFC Telford UTD Car Park premises on the day


2. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

Even IF the driver had parked at the premises, this matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere TEN minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The first 2 hours of the parking is already free so I do not understand why the driver is being penalised for a paid for parking session. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "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." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

link

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “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.”

During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

link


The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 10.59 and driving out at 15.09 on the same date. They were unable to park immediately upon entering the car park due to congestion from other vehicles, and there was further delay purchasing a parking ticket due to having to queue to use the pay and display ticket machine. Although no mention is made of any ticket purchase on the NTK, ParkingEye have since acknowledged that a ticket was purchased at 11.06 for 4 hours of parking, which expired at 15.06 (photo evidence provided). In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period by only 10 minutes, a sum of 7 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 3 minutes after the parking period had ended.

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 unredacted 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. 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.

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.''

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.

''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' 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.

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.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully

waamo

That needs saving for POPLA. Have you seen the thread at the top of this board that tells Newbies to read it first?

There is an initial appeal template to use in that. At this stage there is little point in showing your hand. PE won't cancel and will get more time to rebut your points.

Edit out your number plates as well.

The_Deep

If you did not park there was no contract, no contract therefore none can be breached. Surely that is all that needs to be said, so why the kitchen sink appeal. Get your MP on side

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

beamerguy

silentvoices

As said, such an appeal is to be saved for POPLA

You can certainly use what the BPA says ... to PE
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

1: What do the signs say about how to use the car park ?
IE: Is there any reference as to passing through the car park ???

2: The grace period is your main part with PE

Suggest you edit your post and remove your appeal

silentvoices

thanks a lot gents, really apprecaite your help here

Edna_Basher

Another useful point to add to your POPLA submission is that the main car park at AFC Telford United is actually owned by Telford & Wrekin Council - according to the landowner witness statement that ParkingEye included in a recent evidence pack for this site.

The car park (being provided by a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")) is not relevant land for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA. This means that ParkingEye only has the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the driver.

silentvoices

@edna basher, thanks ever so much

silentvoices

I have had another go at it based on your input and a friend helped me

hope this makes sense??? see below please

Re PCN number:!

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e. any picture to show the car is actually parked?!

This is the allegation of overstaying of 10 minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.


Additional to the above,!Car park (being provided by a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")) is not!relevant land!for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA. This means that ParkingEye only has the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the driver.
Also to add, Driver did not park at AFC Telford UTD – Main car park, the driver went through the AFC Telford UTD – Main car park to the Whitehouse Hotel Telford car park which is absolutely free.
The Whitehouse Hotel Telford car park is adjoined via a metal barrier with the AFC Telford UTD Car Park and the driver was visiting the Whitehouse Hotel Telford and just went through the AFC Telford UTD – Main!
<Picture>
At no point was the vehicle registration no. XXXX XXX was parked at the premises of AFC Telford UTD Car Park. I cannot see any signage of Trespassers, please provide an evidence.
Should the Parking Eye wish to stop people using the adjoining route to the Whitehouse Hotel Telford they should block the way or put metal gates and keep them closed instead of penalising innocent citizens and praying on their hard earned money
Please provide evidence the vehicle in question being parked at the AFC Telford UTD Car Park premises on the day

Umkomaas

Does the reverse page of your Notice to Keeper (NtK) contain a paragraph about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which commences 'You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 ..... '. And a further paragraph which commences ' You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given ....'?

silentvoices

@Umkomaas,

no it does not say anything like that

is that good or bad?

Cheers

Umkomaas

It means they know they cannot pursue the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), so as long as you stay in keeper mode, never revealing the driver's identity, you're in a good place. Perhaps they are aware of the issue suggested by Edna Basher.

Go with your appeal above, but just tidy this bit up:

At no point was the vehicle registration no. XXXX XXX [STRIKE]was[/STRIKE] parked at the premises of AFC Telford UTD Car Park. I cannot see any signage of Trespassers, please provide an evidence. (this doesn't make sense)
Should [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Parking Eye[/STRIKE] ParkingEye wish to stop people using the adjoining route to the Whitehouse Hotel Telford they should block the way or put metal gates and keep them closed instead of penalising innocent citizens and [STRIKE]praying[/STRIKE] preying on their hard earned money