Northern Parking Services PCN

Muzzzz

The one picture I took was a close up of the sign here:
https://imgur.com/a/RXAGro9

It doesn't specify anything to do with grace periods which is my main argument I feel. I can take more of the car park showing that the signs are high up and that they are not located near all parking bays.

The one at the entrance is useless more or less. It just says "customer parking only" then "register your plate with us to avoid a PCN" this doesn't look like a NPS sign more of a sign placed by the restaurant themselves.

Another thing I have just found out today is that the restaurant has actually closed down. If I was unaware then that means other drivers could also be, meaning that once you have entered the car park you have no way of avoiding a "fine" unless you are in and out in under there apparent 5 minute grace period because there is nowhere for you to register a number plate now.

Muzzzz

Another question.

To be Pofa 2012 compliant the operator has to specify "The period the car was parked"

as the ANPR doesn't include this only when the car entered and left the car park does this mean that it isn't compliant?

Muzzzz

I have added additional information to the 2nd section on my appeal referring to the use of ANPR not being transparently described. Would someone mind telling me if it reads well and if it is appropriate, the picture of the sign is in reply #32 if anyone would like to see the information present on it.

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, failure to mention BPA CoP grace priods and failure to mention how ANPR will be used.

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.
(21.1) “you may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. The signs present fail to mention that the ANPR cameras operate for cars entering and exiting the car park (as opposed to when the car actually parks) this is in no way transparent as drivers could believe that the cameras only come into action once the car actually enters a parking bay. Meaning that a car could overstay the grace periods without ever even parking the car as it could be busy or full, meaning a driver could enter the car park, see it is full and wait for safe opportunities to turn and leave but still be deemed as breaching the “contract” as they were in the car park for longer than 5 minutes.

Secondly “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for” the signs fails to adequately mention that ANPR is in use as a means of capturing vehicles information with the intention of posting out PCN’s, ANPR in use could mean anything from monitoring the car park as a crime prevention to looking for uninsured or stolen cars. The only signs that have any mention of ANPR in use are well beyond the entrance where ANPR will have already picked up a vehicle reg, meaning that a driver requires an adequate time period in which to find a parking space and read through all of the tiny terms placed high on a wall before entering into any contract or having the appropriate time scale to go back to the car and leave should they not wish to enter the contract.

Coupon-mad

Muzzzz wrote: »

Another question.

To be Pofa 2012 compliant the operator has to specify "The period the car was parked"

as the ANPR doesn't include this only when the car entered and left the car park does this mean that it isn't compliant?

No. That's been tried before and is ignored by POPLA and by courts unless the person puts into evidence that they never parked at all, such as showing dashcam footage of not being able to park, which you are not.

I would remove your #4 as that one has no legs.

As advised before, you will win on 'grace periods' and as well as POPLA you need to also email Mrs Gemma Dorans at the BPA. That will not be like your POPLA appeal, not long - just a simple complaint that this operator is in breach of the CoP by issuing a PCN after 8 minutes in/out, at a site where parking for the restaurant is invited and thus, allowed.

Attach to this complaint a copy of the letter or email where they admit to only allowing a 5 minute grace period which is ludicrous for ANPR enforcement as it can take even a nippy driver longer than that just to drive in, find the restaurant has closed down, and drive out. The words on the entrance sign are an invitation: "register your plate with us to avoid a PCN" thus people are entrapped.

Another thing I have just found out today is that the restaurant has actually closed down. If I was unaware then that means other drivers could also be, meaning that once you have entered the car park you have no way of avoiding a "fine" unless you are in and out in under there apparent 5 minute grace period because there is nowhere for you to register a number plate now.

Did it close down before or after your visit? If before, add in a section instead of your #4 pointing out the words on the entrance sign are an invitation: "register your plate with us to avoid a PCN" yet that contract is void for impossibility because drivers arrive, are invited in on that premise, park, then find out the restaurant is closed and have to scramble to leave in what should be a ten minute grace period (mandatory in the BPA CoP) yet unbeknown to them this operator is running an unlawful 5 minute grace period scam.

Say it like it is, to Gemma and to POPLA.

Jomot

If its Finkle & Green it closed in January.

I think we may share the same MP, if so that's at least 2 letters he should be getting around the same time on the same subject (although different car park)

Coupon-mad

So it sounds like it was already closed, yet the car park operator didn't remove the 'invitation to treat' on the entrance sign that draws drivers in, so this applies as the new #4 for POPLA:

...add in a section instead of your #4 pointing out the words on the entrance sign are an invitation: "register your plate with us to avoid a PCN" yet that contract is void for impossibility because drivers arrive, are invited in on that premise, park, then find out the restaurant is permanently closed and have to scramble to leave in what should be a ten minute grace period (mandatory in the BPA CoP). Yet unbeknown to them this operator is running an unlawful 5 minute grace period scam.

Muzzzz

Coupon - thanks as always for the quality input and knowledge! I will make my #4 point what you recommended. As for emailing Gemma, I have done that yesterday. She is away until Monday now but asked if I could send my initial PCN, my appeal and the rejection letter for her to see. I have done so and made sure to mention the 5 minute grace period they claim to offer which is only mentioned by them in their rejection.

Jomot - it is the Finkle and Green, apparently it did close in January I had been on there website to see the hours in which they say the car park can be used by there customers and still hadn't realised it closed. I went to email them to complain about the NPS operators and that's when I found parts of their website not working properly and googled it to find it had shut. Alex Cunningham is the MP in the area, I emailed him probably a month ago now and never received any acknowledgement or reply sadly... hope you have better look with it!

Very true on the points that the operator is still inviting people to park even though there is no way for them to then register and avoid a ticket.

So if I change my point #4 does my POPLA look about ready to send off? To that I intend on taking a few more pictures of the car park (the entrance signs are only Finkle & Green signs) so the only way to see the NPS signs are to enter the car park. So I plan on getting a few of the entrance + the non signed bays in the car park then maybe a distant photo from the drivers position of the actual NPS signs and maybe attach my close up of the sign I linked above.

Once I have done all this I am about happy with the appeal but would be happy to hear from anyone more knowledgeable if there are any parts to add/remove. I will link the finished appeal once it's done.

Jomot

Alex Cunningham is the MP in the area, I emailed him probably a month ago now and never received any acknowledgement or reply sadly.

. Oh right, I'm just outside his boundary so my MP is Dr Paul, who is generally pretty good. We'll see I guess!

Good luck with your appeal/complaint.

Muzzzz

Jomot wrote: »

. Oh right, I'm just outside his boundary so my MP is Dr Paul, who is generally pretty good. We'll see I guess!

Good luck with your appeal/complaint.

I have heard good things about Dr Paul so hopefully he can do something for you! Although I had heard good things about Alex Cunningham as well.

Thanks you too!

Coupon-mad

So if I change my point #4 does my POPLA look about ready to send off? To that I intend on taking a few more pictures of the car park (the entrance signs are only Finkle & Green signs) so the only way to see the NPS signs are to enter the car park. So I plan on getting a few of the entrance + the non signed bays in the car park then maybe a distant photo from the drivers position of the actual NPS signs and maybe attach my close up of the sign I linked above.

Sounds good. Add those pics and your POPLA appeal is ready to upload under 'other'.

Embed all signage images in the POPLA appeal document so that you are only uploading one storybook PDF with pictures in it, for POPLA's ease of reading, so the bored and non-legally-trained Assessor can see what you mean without having to click between 5 or 6 photo attachments. It works for me.