Blue Badge & grace periods

A_lot_of_moss

I wouldn't tell you that if it wasn't true.

I'm fed up with hearing the '28 days' quoted back at us whenever we say the code lasts 32 days. We know what we are doing.

Sorry Coupon-mad, the operator stated I had 28 days from the notice date.

I will get my skates on.

A_lot_of_moss

Thanks Half_way, that's the place. I found the owner's name & address on Companies House website.

Coupon-mad

the operator stated I had 28 days from the notice date.

We know.

But POPLA add a few days to allow for idiots who post POPLA appeals, so the code carries on working for online appeals for 32 days.

A_lot_of_moss

Here is my draft, based on CM's suggestions. Comments please. When finalised, should I send a copy to the landowner with a covering letter?


Dear Premier Park Ltd,

re PCN xxxxxxxx - CEASE AND DESIST - you are in breach of the Equality Act 2010

Your company continues to breach the Equality Act 2010. Cease and desist.

Your continued contact and threats of court are harassing and causing significant distress to me and my family, especially the disabled passenger whose protected characteristics caused the issue that you have used as an excuse to charge a 3 figure sum. It is bad enough that Premier Park Ltd's so-called 'Litigation Department' is misleading me about the law, patronising me and pretending you want me to telephone, so that you can 'help resolve' the matter. Even worse is that you claim to be a paralegal but you are breaking the law.

In fact, if you want to resolve this matter, it is important that you now stop Premier’s course of conduct, which undoubtedly can now be considered as unwarranted harassment, as found in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46.

Disability discrimination.

I remind you of the facts - you already know them, but for the avoidance of doubt:
According to the ANPR images, the car overstayed the paid parking time by 21 minutes.
The car was displaying a blue badge. The badge is clearly shown on one of the ANPR image that you sent, albeit at a distance. It is a fact therefore that Premier Park Ltd 'knew or should have known' that the car was being used for 'assisted boarding and alighting' of a disabled person.
Although you do not operate a blue badge scheme at this car park, you have duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to avoid discrimination. However, you have a sign that states ‘NO CONCESSIONS APPLY’. Despite acknowledging the evidence of a blue badge, the reason you have given for dismissing my appeal is that you have this sign in place.
A sign like that is illegal if service providers are relying upon it to exonerate them from their duties under the EA, and whilst they might be able to get away with no disabled bays (depending on the site) that's NOT true of making 'reasonable adjustments' which are not optional.
Service Providers - including parking firms - have legal duties under statute, to ensure that:
- disabled people can access services/premises
- 'reasonable adjustments' are made to policies that would otherwise cause disadvantage
- no detriment is caused to the disabled person and their carers
- the disabled person/their carers are not harassed as a result of anything connected to the disability.

Charging for the time taken for the purpose of assisted boarding/alighting, as if it was 'parking' time, is without a doubt in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (the EA).

It is not enough - not a valid justification or lawful excuse - for the service provider to say that you allow a blanket grace period of, say a minimum of ten minutes before 'enforcement' of parking charges. Whilst ten minutes may be enough for the able bodied population at large to access the car park, to drop someone off and leave without penalty, this is not the case when a passenger is registered disabled.
You have continued to harass me, the registered keeper, for money that you allege is owed 'under contract'.
Yet contract can never override a consumer's rights under statute.

Law of Agency.
I suggest you might need to re-read your basic law books. I expect you are thinking of throwing the case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd at me next. I will save you the bother and hopefully stop this harassment once and for all. CPS v AJH has has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability.

As relevant authority on the matter, I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

Or perhaps you might recall such trials as the Appeal in C0DP9C4E/M17X062 Excel v Smith, a case heard by a Manchester Senior Circuit Judge who (as shown in the transcript) ripped into Excel, the legally represented party, for disingenuously failing to tell the erring Judge that their arguments about the law of agency had already been thrown out in an earlier case the previous week involving the same Defendant. Of course, the Appeal Judge threw Excel's case out and upheld Mr Smith's appeal, making it clear that CPS v AJH Films had no application.

It is my opinion, this baseless pursuit of money at all costs, having denied me an appeal and ignored your legal duties under the EA, is an horrendous example of discrimination and unwarranted harassment.

Harassment and distress
This continued contact and demands for money represent a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money.

This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress.

Counter Claim
Take note that it is my intention to counter-claim for a sum not less than £500 (or such greater sum that the Judge might consider applies, given the facts) in compensation for my distress and that of my family.

I draw your attention to a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO. This was a claim for damages which I understand centred around a lack of reasonable adjustment and incorrect data being held/negligently processed, in breach of the Data Protection Act and the EA. The judge awarded a further £2,500 aggravated damages because of the manner in which the Defendant conducted its case, including the fact that, notwithstanding being told by the Claimant that its conduct was wrong, it took nearly two years for the Defendant to admit the mistake.

The award in Blamires was of 'Vidal Hall' compensation; the judge saying there was no doubt that the breaches had ''caused distress to the claimant in their own rights as well as as a result of the consequences that flowed.'' Compensation can be awarded for pure distress alone.

I am also aware of two recent successful counter-claims against parking operators:

- on Friday 16th March 2018, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm not dissimilar to Excel (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist. UKPC were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 against another parking company of your ilk (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited). Mr B. was the vehicle keeper and as the NTK was not POFA compliant (rather like your NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld.

In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled that the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 for the resulting distress was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of the parking firm in bringing an unfounded case.

Should your company proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will have no hesitation in seeking to claim punitive costs, pursuant to CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g) and I will not restrict those costs to £19 per hour (the usual LiP rate). I intend to seek recompense for the hours I have wasted on this at a rate of £60 ph (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) which I consider to be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances described.

I will also ask the Court of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out your claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24.

I reserve the right to add the landowner to the case, since under the law of agency, they are the party called the 'principal'. Applying the legal principle to your case, any parking agent such as Premier must have had the Hotel's authority to issue parking charges and therefore make(sic) them liable for any breach of the Equality Act that occurred in doing so.

I expect to hear from you within 7 days to confirm that all charges are withdrawn and that my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you. All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.

Yours faithfully,

A_lot_of_moss

Anyone got an email address for Premier Park Ltd? A Google search came up with [EMAIL="admin@premierpark.co.uk"]admin@premierpark.co.uk[/EMAIL] but I'm not sure if that is the correct one. Is emailing a good idea for a Letter before Claim?

A_lot_of_moss

Any thoughts on my draft (post 15) this morning? I need to send it today. Thanks.

Le_Kirk

Looks good to me but then IANAL. I believe the terms for data is ERASED rather than removed - not sure if there is a technical difference except remove could mean taken and put somewhere else, whereas erased is gone for ever.

Coupon-mad

I believe the terms for data is ERASED rather than removed

Yes, we always tell people to say 'erased' because the GDPR includes a right for erasure of old data.

Yes, send that to the PPC and a copy to the landowner with a covering letter asking them to cancel the charge or alternatively to furnish you with the dates when their representative will or will not be available to appear in court this year, because clearly their contractor is hell bent on suing a disabled shopper. That's illegal - and the retail park have vicarious liability for the discriminatory actions of their agents and both should have established a policy in anticipation of the need for disabled shoppers to take longer to undertake daily activities. This has nothing to do with whether concessions apply or disabled bays exist, it is about time taken, and the need for flexibility for those with Equality Act 'protected characteristics'. Clearly the retail park and the parking firm have failed in their legal duties under that Act, specifically failing to make reasonable adjustments.

Remove this bit as it's not suited to your case IMHO:

Law of Agency.
I suggest you might need to re-read your basic law books. I expect you are thinking of throwing the case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd at me next. I will save you the bother and hopefully stop this harassment once and for all. CPS v AJH has has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability.

As relevant authority on the matter, I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

Or perhaps you might recall such trials as the Appeal in C0DP9C4E/M17X062 Excel v Smith, a case heard by a Manchester Senior Circuit Judge who (as shown in the transcript) ripped into Excel, the legally represented party, for disingenuously failing to tell the erring Judge that their arguments about the law of agency had already been thrown out in an earlier case the previous week involving the same Defendant. Of course, the Appeal Judge threw Excel's case out and upheld Mr Smith's appeal, making it clear that CPS v AJH Films had no application.

It is my opinion, this baseless pursuit of money at all costs, having denied me an appeal and ignored your legal duties under the EA, is an horrendous example of discrimination and unwarranted harassment.

Please do not tell us you have sent this by recorded delivery - NEVER!

But do post it 1st class to both parties on Saturday morning, AT A POST OFFICE THAT IS OPEN SATURDAYS. Get free proof = a 'certificate of posting'. NOT SIGNED FOR.

A_lot_of_moss

Thank you CM, that's very helpful. All done as advised. I had sent the unrevised version by email last night. I wonder if they will notice that I removed the Law of Agency section for the paper version.

A_lot_of_moss

Well, I've had no response to my 'letter before claim' from either operator or landowner, so I thought I'd start the ball rolling with my POPLA appeal, which I have submit by the 8th. I've copied the draft here, for your comments. I've had to cut the signage section a little short to restrict the reply to 25K characters for this post, but it will be CM's full version in the final draft. Many thanks in advance for taking the trouble to read it through.

[FONT=&quot]POPLAVerificationCode: XXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 27/03/2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator –Premier Park Ltd –was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 26/04/2019 and rejected via an email dated 07/05/2019. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The reason for issue of the notice, according to the ANPR images, is that the car overstayed the paid parking time by 21 minutes. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The car was displaying a blue badge.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]No evidence of Landowner Authority
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]No evidence of compliant signage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
  
  [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Finally, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting of 30/07/2015 show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in theEnglish book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The recommendation reads:“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Source:...........[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum -a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reasonable Adjustments[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (16.1) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (16.1) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“ ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (16.1) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Operators of off-street car parks do not have to recognise the Blue Badge scheme. But many choose to do so to meet their obligations under the Equality Act.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The car was displaying a blue badge. The badge is clearly shown on one of the ANPR image that the operator sent, albeit at a distance. It is a fact therefore that Premier Park Ltd 'knew or should have known' that the car was being used for 'assisted boarding and alighting' of a disabled person.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Although the operator does not operate a blue badge scheme at this car park, it has duties under the Equality Act 2010 (the EA). to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to avoid discrimination. However, it has a sign that states ‘NO CONCESSIONS APPLY’. Despite acknowledging the evidence of a blue badge, the reason the operator has dismissed my appeal is that it has this sign in place. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A sign like that is illegal if service providers are relying upon it to exonerate them from their duties under the EA, and whilst they might be able to get away with no disabled bays (depending on the site) that's NOT true of making 'reasonable adjustments' which are not optional.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Service Providers - including parking firms - have legal duties under statute, to ensure that:
- disabled people can access services/premises
- 'reasonable adjustments' are made to policies that would otherwise cause disadvantage
- no detriment is caused to the disabled person and their carers
- the disabled person/their carers are not harassed as a result of anything connected to the disability.

Charging for the time taken for the purpose of assisted boarding/alighting, as if it was 'parking' time, is without a doubt in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yet contract can never override a consumer's rights under statute.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The operator has not shown evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 7.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“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”.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“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”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No evidence of compliant signage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This case, by comparison, ..........[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Here, the signs are sporadically ..........

It is vital to observe ...........

This case ................

''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 ............
The letters .......


''When designing your sign......
...and the same chart is reproduced here:

xxxxxxxx
''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.................
(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:

xxxxxxxxxx
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.[/FONT]