Northern Parking Services PCN

MistyZ

I am not the most eagle-eyed .... plus the BPA C.o.P. actually allows for two grace periods, one before and one after parking. Nonetheless, this reads rather well to me. It has the ring of authenticity and makes clear reference to the C.o.P.

I guess you'll be backing up your statements about signage being small and badly located in your signage section? Do you have photos?

Coupon-mad

I think that looks very good and you will win, and that they need reporting to the BPA for ignoring the mandatory grace periods requirement of the Code of Practice, and thus they are in breach of the CoP.

As Steve Clark is away I would email your complaint to Gemma Dorans:

gemma.d@britishparking.co.uk

Looks like a cut & dried breach of the CoP to me because this is not land where people are not allowed to park, and there must be time allowed to read the signs and decide whether to stay or go.

Muzzzz

Cheers guys, I did take a photo of the signs which are the usual tiny writing apart from the "£100" part of it. The sign fails to mention any grace periods however the rejection for the first appeal direct to NPS states that they allow a 5 minute grace period. Is there a way this could be mentioned? As 5 minutes is confirmed in their letter and falls short of the BPA requirements.

As for emailing Gemma, should I email a copy of my POPLA to her or a different email focusing on the grace period point?

Thanks!

Quentin

Your complaint to the BPA is a separate issue to your popla appeal

MistyZ

Muzzzz wrote: »

Cheers guys, I did take a photo of the signs which are the usual tiny writing apart from the "£100" part of it. The sign fails to mention any grace periods however the rejection for the first appeal direct to NPS states that they allow a 5 minute grace period. Is there a way this could be mentioned? As 5 minutes is confirmed in their letter and falls short of the BPA requirements.

As for emailing Gemma, should I email a copy of my POPLA to her or a different email focusing on the grace period point?

Thanks!

If you want to mention NPS' letter specifically in your POPLA appeal (in addition to emailing Gemma), I doubt that would do any harm ....

You could add something like 'Whilst NCP DO NOT mention grace periods on their signage, their rejection of my initial appeal asserted that they allow only 5 minutes grace. This is in breach of the BPA's C.o.P. and I have therefore made a complaint to the BPA'.

Muzzzz

POPLA CODE
I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from Northern Parking Services at Finkle Street Stockton.

As the registered keeper I am exercising my right to not name the driver.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
1. insufficient grace period
2. Inadequate signage
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority
4. No proof of adherence to ANPR compliance checks


1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park.

The parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the car actually parked in a parking bay.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park. In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 1.24pm and driving out at 1.32pm on the same date. This falls below the 10 minute minimum and does not allow for enough time to park, read the signs and decide whether to stay in the carpark. This is further backed up when you observe that restaurant patrons using the car park need to enter a registration number with the restaurant, if the driver intended to visit the restaurant but changed their mind for whatever reason, the grace period should allow for enough time for the driver to enter the car park, park, observe the small signs positioned high on the wall and also view what the restaurant offers before deciding if they will remain in the car park. If the driver decides against using the facilities then they will not have entered a registration plate and require enough of a grace period to leave without being picked up by the ANPR cameras.

It is very clear from the evidence that NPS have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark amounted to only 8 minutes. Not sufficient time for a driver to do all of the above and leave.

2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself and failure to mention BPA CoP grace priods.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is apparent that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, with small writing and positioned highly up outdoor walls. 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. Upon investigating the signage myself I have found that there is no mention of a grace period to non-permit holders which NPS later relied on in their letter stating “The notice clearly shows that the vehicle was in the carpark for longer than the 5 minute grace period for non-permit holders” not only is this not mentioned on their signs it also breaches the BPA Code of Practise as mentioned in point 1

It is also vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2/6/16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''The signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

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

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule', the 'signage visibility distance' and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which have fallen short of the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


4. Northern Parking Services have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

NPS has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.

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

Yours faithfully



Here is a draft of the POPLA appeal. If someone could be so kind as to offer any advise. I have removed any information regarding not having the right to chase the keeper for costs as they have mentioned their rights to do so in a paragraph regarding the POFA2012. I am not sure if there is anything missing (or irrelevant in this draft) so advise is welcome. Thanks.

Muzzzz

I have taken a close up photo of the signs that are on the outside of the car park and also the main signs high on the walls inside, should I embed the actual photos into the appeal for them to see?

KeithP

Muzzzz wrote: »

...should I embed the actual photos into the appeal for them to see?

Yes you must.

You want you make your appeal easy to read. That means not asking the assessor to leap all over the internet looking for things.

Have you seen the example PoPLA appeals linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread?

You will find there at least one PoPLA appeal running to over twenty pages with lots of images embedded.

Muzzzz

I have looked through the #3 POPLA thread, the only pictures I have are the one at the entrance which state customer parking only after 5pm for restaurant (no mention of Saturday all day parking which their website states) and a close up of the private land NPS terms sign. Would these two suffice or is it worth taking pictures of the car park and specifically the bays that do not have parking term signs close by? I am also going to add a picture from the NPS appeal rejection letter where they state they give a 5 minute grace period.

Aside from adding pictures, does the actual text of the draft I posted seem to cover most bases? Could that (with pictures in with the text) be enough for me to send out or is there anything I have missed that should be included?

MistyZ

Ideally you need photos of signage that illustrate the points made - include numbered references to the images. Go careful with close-ups, okay if you're specifically referring to wording on the sign but obviously they can appear misleadingly clear if taken on a brighter day or by zooming in.

Photograph anything that you think makes complying with T&Cs difficult.