Popla appeal euro car parks

SamJ84

Hi,

I’m preparing a popla appeal against a pcn issued by euro car parks. I’m aware they’re not likely to take it to court but would rather end it at this stage so it’s not a possibility over the next 6 years.

The circumstances:

All 3 ticket machines had the same fault saying there was a network error and the credit card payment failed.

The machine didn’t take cash.

There was an option to pay by phone, but the driver did not know how to do so, and had security concerns. They therefore decided to park whilst revisiting the machine to attempt payment a number of times over the next hour or so. Photos were taken as proof.

The ticket was issued by post via ANPR. Signage about this at the site was small text, and the driver was not aware ANPR was in use, nor how it would be used. I doubt they’d have parked there if they had known.

Naively, the first appeal was made before visiting this forum. As such, the driver was probably identified by the wording of the appeal.The response to this appeal was that it didn’t matter that the machines weren’t working as payment should then have been made by phone, and if the driver didn’t want to pay that way then they should have parked elsewhere.

However, there was no communication of this at the parking site, nor a number to ring in event of a fault.

Is frustration of contract a good appeal point, despite a phone number supposedly being available to pay by? Is lack of cash option a frustration of contract appeal point?

Signs appear to be a good appeal point, as is landowner authority.

Is it still worthwhile to appeal based on no keeper liability as if driver wasn’t identified?

It’s going to be a rushed appeal as I’ve been ill, and the deadline is close. I suppose the main thing I need help with is whether to include all the keeper not liable appeal points despite thinking the driver could have been identified by wording of the first appeal. It’s unlkely the keeper ticked the driver box, but can’t be sure. The appeal was worded with personal pronouns which is why the driver may have been considered to have been identified.

Thanks of any help

Coupon-mad

Is it still worthwhile to appeal based on no keeper liability as if driver wasn’t identified?

No, and I wouldn't try that anyway with ECP these days, as their NTKs are POFA worded now. So forget it, makes no difference unless the NTK was posted late (I doubt it).

Just go with what you were thinking of, above, sounds reasonable to me and you might get lucky with the landowner contract point which sometimes works.

SamJ84

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, and I wouldn't try that anyway with ECP these days, as their NTKs are POFA worded now. So forget it, makes no difference unless the NTK was posted late (I doubt it).

The keeper did find the following recent euro car parks appeal which won based on wording in the letter about transfrerring liability. It’s the same wording, which was another reason it was being considereed as an appeal point.

Xxxxx://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72497947

Appeal outcome:
“After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle, on the date of the alleged parking contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. PoFA 2012 states: “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” Therefore, transfer of liability occurs ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’. However the PCN that has been received states “…29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …”. This is incorrect because the field titled “Date Issued” is actually the date the PCN was issued not the date the notice to keeper was sent out. As such I can confirm that the PCN issued is not compliant with PoFA 2012 and I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal; however I do not need to look at these as I have allowed the appeal.”

nosferatu1001

Have you compared the ntk with yours to see if it has the same issue?

SamJ84

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Have you compared the ntk with yours to see if it has the same issue?

I was going off the wording, “However the PCN that has been received states “…29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …”. This is incorrect because the field titled “Date Issued” is actually the date the PCN was issued not the date the notice to keeper was sent out.”

I may have misunderstood what the issue was, but more research has given me a better understanding of the issue and that the loophole has been closed. My letter’s date issued is indeed the date the pcn was issued with a separate date for the event, so I gather I was wrong to think it was the same. .

The_Deep

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.

SamJ84

As I’m running out of time due to being ill, I think I’ll need every second I have left. The appeal rejection was dated 21/01/19 and it says I can make a popla appeal within 28 days online. It got me wondering if there was any trickery with the wording ‘within’ or whether the 21st january counts as day one or not of that countdown.

If 21/01/19 is the first day that would make the 28th day tomorrow, Sunday 17/02/19. Is that correct or do I have a little longer?

Coupon-mad

A POPLA code lasts for 32 days, trust us! I do these on day 31 all the time.

I really wish people would stop thinking they only have 28 days for POPLA. Yes, I know they 'say' that. But no, you have 32 days in reality, it just isn't said anywhere.

Your NTK will not have this error, which was a temporary mistake ECP made a year ago or so, not any more:

This is incorrect because the field titled “Date Issued” is actually the date the PCN was issued not the date the notice to keeper was sent out.

Now, ECP put the date issued correctly, as the date the NTK was supposedly posted.

So don't put in: 'no keeper liability' for a NTK that was served in time.

SamJ84

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A POPLA code lasts for 32 days, trust us! I do these on day 31 all the time.

Thanks. From reading the forum, I think you’re the person who wrote the very useful templates in the newbie thread, so thank you for that.

I haven’t got around to personalising the signs template yet as I’m roughing in more points before I do so. But I did notice the eBay link about signage seems to have disappeared altogether from the eBay site. I had a look for similar around the web, and I can find similar quotes but not with the same sign from the signazon link, and when I found the same kind of sign there was nothing of interest to use as a quote. Is the same sign in any replacement eBay link important or is it the quotes which matter? Can this eBay link and quote be lost without much damage if I don’t replace it?

Having not looked closely at the signs and positioning yet I’m not sure whether it would be applicable to the driver’s situation anyway. All I know from a glance at the photos is the signs don’t comply on anpr and the charge as well as offering no communication or instructions informing the driver what they should have done, (as they suggested in the appeal rejection that the driver should have done x, but there was no way for the driver to be informed of that at the time). Obviously the driver would have made a different decision if they were informed about the use of ANPR or had a way of receiving information on what they should have done.

Coupon-mad

But I did notice the eBay link about signage seems to have disappeared altogether from the eBay site. I had a look for similar around the web, and I can find similar quotes but not with the same sign from the signazon link, and when I found the same kind of sign there was nothing of interest to use as a quote. Is the same sign in any replacement eBay link important or is it the quotes which matter? Can this eBay link and quote be lost without much damage if I don’t replace it?

Yes remove it. It does no harm to lose that, and I've not seen a decent replacement.

SamJ84

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes remove it. It does no harm to lose that, and I've not seen a decent replacement.

I did replace it with something before I saw your reply and have left it in for feedback on here.

Here is my draft appeal. I am on the 30th day.

I have a few questions with regards feedback:

Am I arguing frustration of contract or no contract?

Does frustration of contract go first or is it best to put it around fourth?

I’ve made additions to the inadequate signage newbe template appeal point. maybe I've added too much.

The frustration of contract appeal point is mostly my own words with a few copy and pastes.

Have I missed any useful appeal points?

Have I included any poor appeal points?

Should I include the following case in the frustration of contract point? If so, I'm not sure how to introduce it.

Port Talbot: 19-10-2016: C1GF37H7: Link Parking v Mr N

It was argued Link Parking that Mr N should leave the carpark in the event of the machines not working. The judge ruled that frustration of contract applied and that Mr N had attempted to fulfil his contractual obligations but could not because of the broken machine. The claim was dismissed.



---
POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxx

As the registered keeper of this vehicle I received a letter dated 13/12/2018 serving as a notice to keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Euro Car Parks – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 24/12/2018 and rejected via an email dated 21/01/2019. I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxx and contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge.

The driver and passenger attempted to pay for the expected stay but all three ticket machines rejected card payment due to network error. There was no option to make a cash payment and the phone payment was not understood by the passenger and driver at the time. The driver made the decision to park and return to attempt payment over the next hour without success. It was advised on rejection of the first appeal that in the event of being unable to pay the driver should have parked elsewhere. However, there was no communication of this instruction at the time, either through signage, a phone contact, nor person on site despite the sign saying the car park was patrolled. I would suggest better communication would help the driver make a more informed decision. Therefore, I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:

1. Frustration of contract (failure of all 3 machines on site to accept payment)
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and 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
3. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be
used for
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. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
7. No Planning Permission from Salford City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage




1. Frustration of contract (failure of all 3 machines on site to accept payment).

No contract could have been formed as consideration was not accepted by the parking company. The Pay & Display machine was faulty, meaning payment could not be made. The driver attempted payment at all 3 machines and returned to them a number of times over the next few hours in an attempt to pay.



Below are 4 photographs showing the machine fault and multiple attempts to pay:




The parking company informed the keeper upon rejection of the first appeal that it was ‘the driver’s responsibility to check for other payment methods provided on site, or find alternative parking to avoid a notice being issued’.

There was no facility to make a cash payment at this location as the machines only accepted cards. If an operator does not accept cash payment, no debt can accrue.

The only other potential method of paying on site is phone payment. However, there were no clear instructions informing the driver how to pay by phone. There was only information concerning numbers to ring or apps to download. This lack of instruction can be seen as unclear and intimidating to drivers who do not understand technology, the process of this method of paying, nor addresses any concerns over security of the payment method. As such a person new to such a payment method cannot be required to use it for the first time in event of a faulty machine. Insisting that payment should be made this way in the event of a fault with a machine amounts to indirect age discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and moreover is impossible in numerous circumstances such as where the driver does not have a mobile phone available or the battery dies etc.

In adddition, there is no proof phone payment was available and working at the time of parking. This method of payment could also have been faulty, like the machine. Therefore, it follows that I require Euro Car Parks to provide proof this payment method was working and fault free at the time of the event.


As the parking company holds that in the event of a machine fault frustrating the driver’s attempts to pay it is ‘the driver’s responsibility to check for other payment methods provided on site, or find alternative parking to avoid a notice being issued’, then such a fault should be anticipated by the parking company and these terms clearly communicated to the driver at the time of parking in some manner, such as signage with the terms or a phone number to call in the event of a fault.

However, Euro Car Parks had no signs on site informing the driver what to do in the event of a fault with the machines, such as for example, “in the event that the payment machines are unavailable, the parking charges still apply and our ‘Phone and Pay’ service should be used.” Nor was there a sign instructing the driver to park elsewhere in the event of a faulty machine. In addition, there was no phone number to ring, nor a person on site to speak to in event of a fault.

As the parking company issued these responsibilities/terms at the time of the appeal without doing so at the time of parking on site it appears to be a deliberate withholding of communication, there is no other explanation. As these terms were not communicated at the time, and as a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms, there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

As such, I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof that such signs are prominently displayed on site in a way that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms that it was ‘the driver’s responsibility to check for other payment methods provided on site, or find alternative parking to avoid a notice being issued’.

Even if a contract was formed, which is impossible under trite contract law, the contract was frustrated because the claimant’s machine was broken. The alleged contract, created by the operator’s signage, is voidable under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, and as held in Nicholl and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co [1901] 2 KB 126, for the reason that it became impossible for the driver to make a card payment into the machine through no fault of their own, and over which they had no control. In the alternative, in Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes ‘reasonable endeavours’ to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.


2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I 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.

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:



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.


Figure 1: Euro Car Parks’ main car park sign on the Browncross street

The image in figure 1 shows the main sign displaying terms and conditions. It is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways:

• It is high on a pole, making it difficult to read.

• There is a huge amount of text to be read.

• This text is crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background.

• Other text is far more prominent than the disputed £100 parking charge, which is hidden in a paragraph in small print. Only when zooming in on the image of the sign can you just (if peering at the image with the benefit of a computer) make it out in non-bold small print, half the size of the tariff charges. This appears to be deliberate, there is no other explanation.
• The section in red text at the bottom of the sign 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 when light is 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.


Figure 2: Entrance to the car park as seen from a vehicle approaching.

The image in figure 2 shows the view as a driver approaches the entrance. Note it is not possible to approach from the opposite direction. It is also inadequate as an entrance sign in a number of ways:

• Both signs on the pole are mounted way above the height of the driver.

• The bottom sign is angled away so a driver cannot read it from the angle of approach.
• Not only is this sign angled away, it is also extremely crowded with text so small no driver would be able to read it from within the car, even if it was angled towards them at head height.

• The text on the top sign is even higher with illegible text as the driver approaches.

• It would be a safety hazard for the driver to strain to read any of the terms on these 2 signs as they approached the entrance.

The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance
signs. Following further research (on foot, during daylight), it is not disputed that
Euro Car Parks entrance sign meets these requirements in terms of wording/layout – in fact it is almost a direct copy of the example the BPA provide.

What is disputed are other requirements the BPA sets in Appendix B, specifically:

1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times…

In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case
is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead, nor is it readable and understandable at all times due to height, angle and text size.


Figure 3: Sign as you approach from the main road

This image shows the sign as you approach the car park from the approach road, (Browncross street). Note the side road (Johnson street), where the entrance to the car park is situated for a vehicle to enter is situated further down Browncross street.
This sign is only visible if you travel in this direction down the Browncross street. This, nor any other sign of this type, is visible approaching the car park from the opposite direction.


Figure 4: The view of the car park from the opposite side to figure 3, further down the approach road (Browncross street).

The image in figure 4 shows both the lack of a visible large sign such as in figure 3 should you approach from the opposite direction. It also shows the general view of the car park to illustrate sporadically placed signs with general areas of the site being unsigned.

The entrance signs from figure 2 are on the right of the frame. The reverse of the large sign in figure 3 is on the left of the frame. The reverse of the main sign in figure 1 is above the silver car in the foreground on the left, where the floodlight pole is.

xxxx://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=138%232749%232749#2749
Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car
Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton linked above) 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.

These photographs clearly show that Euro Car Parks’ signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:

“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.”
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 the Browncross street car park 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 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.''

In addition, this case is also more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 2413527021 in February 2018 linked below:

xxxx://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5744067&highlight=euro+car+parks&page=2#38
In this decision the Assessor found that signs where the parking charge was not prominent on the signage did not comply with Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012:

“I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. This is due to the charge amount being written within a paragraph of text and is not prominent on the signage.”

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:

xxx-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

xxx.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx
“When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.”

And also discussed here:

xxx.signs.com/blog/signage-101-letter-height-visibility/
“Letter visibility will be affected by where you place the sign in relation to sidewalks or roadways. Take into consideration the angle of where you are placing the sign and the angle of the the viewer (whether in a car or walking on a sidewalk).”

“Signs below or above eye level should include larger letters for increased visibility.”

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a 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 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 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' websites 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:

xxxbailii.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.

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 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, with one sign angled away from the driver), 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. Had the terms been transparent and clearly communicated the driver would have made a different decision in the heat of the moment.

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.