I am going travelling for 10 weeks in 3 days can I appeal a PCN OR SHALL I JUST PAY

nosferatu1001

That the DRIVER did not breach the MANDATORY GRACE PERIODS they are REQUIRED to have, as the time from expiry of ticket to exiting the car park was under 10 minutes.

Seriously.

Tapasnrioja

As mentioned this is all very new and a little scary - don't want to type the wrong thing and fall at the first hurdle better to seek advice.

Tapasnrioja

there is no where to put the template from the newbie page as its online. so have cut and pasted it in the reason for claim box. now keeping my fingers crossed

Coupon-mad

That's what you were meant to do, so there is 'somewhere' to put it!

Tapasnrioja

hello fantastic people have now received a rejection letter, and it has given me a popla reference number. They have also sent a photo of the sign at the carpark, and also said that from entering and exiting the carpark it was an overstay of 14 mins. please can one of you help me and tell me what to do next. many thanks in advance.

twhitehousescat

yes there is a grace period upon entering , and a further one on leaving , those periods added together exceed the time you stayed ON SITE for

go and download the BPA code of conduct (current one) and quote from it

note ON SITE is different to time parked

BPA COP states time on site

Fruitcake

Tapasnrioja wrote: »

hello fantastic people have now received a rejection letter, and it has given me a popla reference number. They have also sent a photo of the sign at the carpark, and also said that from entering and exiting the carpark it was an overstay of 14 mins. please can one of you help me and tell me what to do next. many thanks in advance.

Make a PoPLA appeal just like the NEWBIES tells you to do.

Use all the relevant points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Lack of grace periods. (Note the plural as already mentioned. Quote the relevant arts of the BPA CoP).
Not the landowner.
No standing to issue charges.
Inadequate signage. (Use the rally long appeal template and insert your own pics to show how their signage fails to meet the CoP).
Any NTK PoFA failures.

… and anything else that is relevant.

Coupon-mad

please can one of you help me and tell me what to do next

Show us your POPLA grace period appeal, same as all other threads exactly like this.

Tapasnrioja

I have taken one of the recommended POPLA appeals and deleted the sections that did not apply. e.g. re that specific car park and photographic evidence as there is none so far regarding my appeal. I have not added anything extra but will of course add in the dates, times, appeal numbers before sending. would anyone mind reading the appeal below to make sure there are no IDIOT newbie mistakes please.
Apologies for format
I don't know how to attach a document can anyone help me add an attachment so it can be reviewed but in the mean time Pasting in section 1 & 2

POPLA Verification Code:Code from the rejection letter
Vehicle Registration: Registered Keeper Registration
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated DATE acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Euro Car Parks – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on DATE and rejected via an email dated Date . I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1. GracePeriod:BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5. No Evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
8. Vehicle Images contained in PCN:BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance
















1. Grace Period : BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking

Association (BPA):

“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.”
“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.”

Finally, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“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.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
(Source:
LINK REMovED
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.
As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions (in this case in the dark with no lighting), decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.
It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Euro Car Parks claim was 14 minutes ) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
. a) !The lack of sufficient signage throughout the carpark in question(non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
. b) !The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
. c) !The lengthiness of Euro Car Parks’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “Important Notice” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2).
All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions.
• Decipher the confusing information being presented (one example being identifying which fees apply, as discussed further in this document).
• Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
• Return to car and safely leave the car park.



2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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:
LINK removed
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.
Figure 1 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
Picture removed

Figure 1: Beavis 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. Here, the signs are sporadically and sparsely 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.
Euro Car Parks’ main car park sign on the Goulden Road site (the only one in the car park displaying terms and conditions) is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see Figure 2).
Picture removed

Figure 2: Goulden Street- car park sign close-up
The image in Figure 2 shows a close up of the main car park sign, it should be emphasised that, when viewed from ground level, the text is even more difficult to read than it is in Figure 2) in addition
• The sign is positioned high on a pole, making it difficult to read.
•Figure 2 shows that Euro Car Parks’ signage does not comply 
with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, 
so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” 7

The section in red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2) that is apparently an “Important Notice” is in tiny text that is impossible to read without a step ladder. It cannot be ignored – the wording used clearly states it is important and therefore urges the reader to fully read and understand. Why is something so important so small and illegible? Furthermore, red text on a yellow background is difficult to read, especially in low light conditions or with artificial light introducing a glare onto the reflective surface of the sign.
Indeed, in relation to design principles, it is widely known that colour contrast plays a key role in terms of accessibility as it “affects some people’s ability to perceive information (in other words to be able to receive the information visually).” (Government Digital Service, 17 June 2016). Whilst this web page discusses design principles in relation to web design, the same points are true of print-based materials which would include signage.
“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”
Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:

Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

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, the signs in Goulden Street car park do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on all but one of the signs within the car park site). Large 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 02/06/16, 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 Euro Car Parks 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:
2 LINKS REMOVED
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

''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:
LINK REMOVED

''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:

LINK REMOVED
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), in the same lighting conditions. 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. In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:
“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you....In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”
Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Euro Car Parks. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated.
Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.
When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (too high, on the passenger side of the vehicle, not visible from drivers side), invisible after dark (not lit, too high to be lit by virtue of reflecting any vehicle headlights, particularly from a moving vehicle entering the car park from a 30MPH road), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.

Coupon-mad

You can't attach.

You can show a broken link (change http to hxxp) to a Dropbox shared file.