Poor Lighting appeal

Dane1980

Hi all,

I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks (Cowick Street) and following my unsuccessful appeal im now at the POPLA stage.

The car park in question is a service yard which has recently had ANPR installed. The driver parked after dusk and the car park is very poorly lit. As such they were not aware of the parking terms and conditions. Subsequent visits at night confirmed the inadequacy of the lighting and I have taken photos which I believe support the case.

Looking at other POPLA appeals in the forum, most have been successful based on the fact that the operator has not provided photographic evidence of lit signage at night. Many have failed where the operator has provided images.

My question is, should I provide my own images of badly lit signs or rely on ECP not having any to support their case. I am confident my images support my case but wouldn't want them to be used in support of ECP.

I appealed to ECP using the standard template and requested they provide all photograhic evidence. The two images they have provided on the signage has been taken in daylight.

Any advice appreciated

Umkomaas

Use your own but don't submit any which you feel might support the other side's case.

But there are other issues to raise, as detailed in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3. Don't risk a one point appeal, hit ECP with as much to deal with/rebut as possible.

The_Deep

Has the PPC obtained planning and advertising consents from the council?

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

Dane1980

Ok thanks for confirming.

Here is my draft appeal letter, comments welcome

POPLA Ref No. xxxx

I wish to appeal a recent PCN from Euro Car Parks for alleged ‘breach of terms and conditions within Cowick Street – Exeter Staff/Delivery on xx/xx/20xx'.

Euro Car Parks have rejected my appeal despite the facts of the case and mitigating factors present. Further to scrutiny of the ethics of such practices of private parking companies and recent bills and amendments to law and code of practice proposed by Sir Greg Knight MP, details have now been sent to Ben Bradshaw MP, should this case constitute wider public interest and concern.

I would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

1. Insufficient or adequate signage
2. No contract was formed with the driver
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority


1. Insufficient or inadequate signage

Euro Car Parks signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Aspects of the signs are in small print and the terms are not readable.

Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. A number of small signs are present to the right of the entrance to the car park meaning a driver could not safely read this signage without taking their eyes off the road ahead; something unsafe with pedestrians, families, small children, consumers, etc present and moving within the car park, especially at busy times.

The main sign at the immediate vehicle entrance to the car park is barely noticeable as drivers (particularly at night) who, unable to stop at that point in the road, rightly strive to accord with legal and safe driving practice. Indeed the text is so small as to render the sign unreadable and unremarkable. The sign is impossible to read whilst entering the car park and is insufficiently eye catching at night to give one cause to revisit after parking.

I believe Euro Car Parks have done this quite deliberately so as to have the claim afterwards that signage is provided, but in the full knowledge all the while that it is highly unlikely that its message will be recognised or noted by drivers.

Moreover, signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver at night due to there being no direct lighting over the signage and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. Euro Car Parks are required to show evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. There may be a sign inside the car park but unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did. An unfair 'out of all proportion' charge for non-parking activity i.e. grace periods at the beginning and end of the paid-for parking period is precisely the sort of charge that the Beavis case Judges made clear would fail the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged'.

I require Euro Car Parks to prove beyond any doubt that there was a suitable sign, meeting the requirements of the law, within the clear line of sight of the driver on the driver's walking route from the exact position of the parked car and the entrance that the driver used to the shop on that day.


2. No contract was formed with the driver

Evidence has been provided with this appeal that clearly shows that the signage within this car park has no direct lighting. Failing to illuminate the signage means that any driver entering the car park after dusk would not be aware that there are restrictions within the car park. From subsequent review of the signage during the day light hours, it is also clear that a motorist using the car park could quite easily exit the car park without passing any signage as highlighted in appendix C. This image shows the drivers walking route out of the car park and appendix D confirms that line of sight to the signage is obscured by the drainpipe.

Appendix A & B are images taken around the same time as the PCN were issued and clearly highlight that there is no direct lighting on the signage in the car park and also that one is affected by the silhouetting of light around a drainpipe.

For a contract to be formed, there must be offer and acceptance. When the driver entered the car park, the entire area was in near darkness, with no effort at all being made by the operator to alert the driver to an offer they wished to make. In the pitch black car park, the driver could not have known or indeed have been reasonably expected to have known that any offer existed. Without knowledge, awareness or notification of an offer, there can certainly be no implication made that the driver accepted any offer.

The darkness of the car park is also clearly evidence in the ANPR cameras which struggle to clearly show the car registration and image of the car and surrounding area.

I believe that the driver of the vehicle had not been made aware of any offer of a contract and that the PCN was unfairly and wrongly issued as no such contract existed. No offer was made by Euro Car Parks and therefore the driver of the vehicle had nothing to accept. With neither an offer nor an acceptance, a contract cannot have been created.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority

Euro Car Parks has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Smart Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Smart Parking are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Euro Car Parks to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner, and indeed with the retails outlets at Haven Banks Retail Park, the users of the land. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this large sum of money for this alleged contravention in this car park.

In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

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 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 Code of Practice 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.


I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Thank you for considering this appeal.

Fruitcake

The "inadequate signage" template appeal point in the NEWBIES is longer than the whole of your appeal above.
Use the template version amended to suit your night time photos.

Embed the images into your appeal rather than use links. That way the assessor is forced to see them.

Post your photos here first for the regulars to comment on. Upload then to a web hosting site then paste the URL here but change http to hxxp. Someone here will change them back to a live link so they can be viewed.

Do check with the council planning department as suggested by The Deep. Failure to have advertising consent for the signs is a criminal offence.

Umkomaas

Do check with the council planning department as suggested by The Deep. Failure to have advertising consent for the signs is a criminal offence.

In this case, given it's a fairly newly acquired car park for ECP, it could give ECP grief if the council are breathing down their necks. But it will not have any great deal of traction with POPLA as it is outside their remit.

However, regardless of whether you've had any response from the local council, insert two further and separate appeal sections on 'No planning permission for ANPR cameras' and 'No advertising consent for signage'. Lack of advertising consent is a criminal offence and PPCs should be well aware of this, yet in many cases continue to flout the law in this regard.

You should check out the legal phrase 'Ex turpi causa non oritur actio' and build this into the advertising consent appeal point.

All of this will give ECP extra work to rebut, and if they don't, your response to POPLA is that they have essentially agreed with and accepted your position.

Dane1980

docs uploaded here:

hxxps://smaldonrules.wixsite.com/appeal-docs

Ive had a quick scan and can see no permission for signs/ANPR but will confirm with planning tomorrow.

Worth saying that ECP have operated there for a long time but was with a patrol up until January when they switched to ANPR and put a load of extra signs up.

Thanks
Dane

Umkomaas

https://smaldonrules.wixsite.com/appeal-docs

On your bird's eye view, I wouldn't be marking off all the other signage in the car park, that would be ECP's job to do for POPLA if they choose to submit a signage map. If they come up with something quite different to your full map of the signs, you still have that up your sleeve for the rebuttal.

A POPLA assessor might just decide from your map, if submitted in full at this stage, that there is sufficient signage, and find against your major appeal point. There have been some pretty flaky decisions of late.

I would just mark off the signs in the immediate vicinity of where the car was parked and where the occupants exited on foot.

The other appeal point you must make is that the car park is for staff only and the signage confirms this. As a result the PPC has no offer of parking to make and therefore has not entered in to a contract with the driver.

At best, this is a trespass tort, which can only be progressed through the courts by the landowner (the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case confirmed this), at worst, ECP is attempting to impose a penalty, which no private company has any legal basis for doing so.

Dane1980

Updated appeal with recommended comments included.

I havent included the planning consent for ANPR as they are wall mounted so within permitted development (although the cameras they have in the car park next door are pole mounted and pretty sure these wont have permission)

Comments welcome

POPLA Ref No. xxx

I wish to appeal a recent PCN from Euro Car Parks for alleged ‘breach of terms and conditions within Cowick Street – Exeter Staff/Delivery on xx/xx/20xx'.

Euro Car Parks have rejected my appeal despite the facts of the case and mitigating factors present. Further to scrutiny of the ethics of such practices of private parking companies and recent bills and amendments to law and code of practice proposed by Sir Greg Knight MP, details have now been sent to Ben Bradshaw MP, should this case constitute wider public interest and concern.

I would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

1. Insufficient or adequate signage
2. No contract was offered to or accepted by the driver
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority
4. No advertising consent for signage


1. Insufficient or inadequate signage

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 £100, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance (see appendix F) - 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:

link

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:

link

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 in many areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious (particular at night) 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.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

link

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

link

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

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

link

''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

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. Euro Car Parks signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Aspects of the signs are in small print and the terms are not readable.

2. No contract was offered to or accepted by the driver

Evidence has been provided with this appeal that clearly shows that the signage within this car park has no direct lighting. Failing to illuminate the signage means that any driver entering the car park after dusk would not be aware that there are restrictions within the car park. From subsequent review of the signage during the day light hours, it is also clear that a motorist using the car park could quite easily exit the car park without passing any signage as highlighted in appendix C. This image shows the drivers walking route out of the car park and appendix D confirms that line of sight to the signage is obscured by the drainpipe.

Appendix A & B are images taken around the same time as the PCN were issued and clearly highlight that there is no direct lighting on the signage in the car park which the driver would have passed and also that one is affected by the silhouetting of light around a drainpipe.

The car park signage near the entrance (see appendix F which is taken during daylight hours) states ‘Staff Parking Only’ and has made no offer of parking to the driver and therefore Euro Car Parks has not entered into any contract with the driver. At best, this is a trespass tort, which can only be progressed through the courts by the landowner (the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case confirmed this).

For a contract to be formed, there must be offer and acceptance. When the driver entered the car park, the entire area was in near darkness, with no effort at all being made by the operator to alert the driver to an offer they wished to make. In the pitch black car park, the driver could not have known or indeed have been reasonably expected to have known that any offer existed (if such an offer did indeed exist). Without knowledge, awareness or notification of an offer, there can certainly be no implication made that the driver accepted any offer.

The darkness of the car park is also clearly evidence in the ANPR cameras which struggle to clearly show the car registration and image of the car and surrounding area.

I believe that the driver of the vehicle had not been made aware of any offer of a contract and that the PCN was unfairly and wrongly issued as no such contract existed. No offer was made by Euro Car Parks and therefore the driver of the vehicle had nothing to accept. With neither an offer nor an acceptance, a contract cannot have been created.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority

Euro Car Parks has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Smart Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Smart Parking are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Euro Car Parks to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner, and indeed with the retails outlets at Haven Banks Retail Park, the users of the land. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this large sum of money for this alleged contravention in this car park.

In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

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 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 Code of Practice 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. No advertising consent for signage for Exeter City Council

Euro Car Parks do not have Advertising Consent for signage exceeding 0.3 m2. Anyone who displays an advertisement, or uses an advertisement site, or knowingly permits someone else to do so, without the consent required for it is acting illegally. Displays which are unauthorised until consent is granted will amount to a criminal offence and can be subject to prosecution in the Courts where substantial fines can be imposed.

The failure to apply for advertising consent is a criminal offence (under s224 of the Town and country Planning Act 1990), punishable by a fine of up to £2,500 and £250 a day for continued breach.

I believe Euro Car Parks are/have been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment for which no planning application is valid.

I request Euro Car Parks provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (26/01/2019).

I therefore state that under the legal doctrine of ‘Ex turpi causa non oritur actio’, Euro Car Parks would have no legal basis to pursue the driver of the vehicle due to its own illegal act of placing signage in this location without obtaining the required adverting consents.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN

Umkomaas

I think I'd promote appeal point #2 to #1. It's your main defence.

I note you've placed lots of links in your draft. You should embed images rather than internet links as it gives the assessor no excuse not to examine them. Everything then is in one place, right in front of their eyes.

You've done a great job in researching 'Ex turpi ... ', and nicely worked in to that particular appeal point. However, I'd remove the bit about how much fines run to as I think that gives the assessor more reason to say 'nowt to do with POPLA guv' and gloss over it. I'd make the section more like dangling something potentially intriguing in front of the assessor to provide them with a reason to look more closely at it (and tie ECP in trying to rebut - if they don't rebut, with evidence, it gives you good reason to therefore argue they don't have advertising consent).

I read what you say about planning permission for ANPR, but I'd still include it as again it forces ECP to deal with the point, with evidence. Otherwise you pile in when commenting on their evidence.

If you've got time before your POPLA deadline, see if anyone else wishes to comment in the next 24-48 hours.

Coupon-mad

I agree, no showing an aerial view with signs marked on it.

And no showing that entrance sign, at all, it's clear enough to read in daylight!