UKPC parking charge at the gym group

MsM09

Hi Folks


Looking for some advice - received an invoice from UKPC for overstaying by 12 minutes at the gym - my training session took forever and I lost track of time!


I have appealed to UKPC and been rejected as expected. I'm just pulling a POPLA together. Can I post it on here and get some feedback? I assume I can challenge this best through grace period but to be honest I've not done one of these before and would love some advice

Ralph-y

hi, and welcome to the forum ...


have you read through the newbies thread ?


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyouhttp://


have you complained to the gym yet ?


Read the newbies thread for examples of popla threads ...


good luck


Ralph:cool:

MsM09

POPLA Verification Code: Vehicle Registration:


I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 11/04/2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – UK Parking Control Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 23/04/2019 and rejected via a letter dated 21/05/2019. 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:

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

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

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

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

5. No Evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for


1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

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.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

“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.”

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. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), 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.
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking
Association (BPA):

“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.”

In November 2017 there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period”.

Some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting 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':

“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 the English 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.”

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.”

(Source:http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting Notes/Governance/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf)

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 – certainly an allegation of twelve minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

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 (in this case in the dark with no lighting), decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which UK Parking Control
claim was 2 hours 12 minutes) is not an unreasonable period given the grace period at the start and end of the stay, considering:

a) The site is not well lit and relies on nearby lighting as its primary source
of lighting.

b) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (noncompliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.

c) The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.

d) The lengthiness of UK Parking Control Ltd.’s signage (in terms of word count), see Figure 2.

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.
• Decipher the confusing information being presented (one example is how personal data will be used, as discussed further in section 7 of this document).
• Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
• Return to car and safely leave the car park.

MsM09

2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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

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: http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

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. Figure 1 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



Figure 1: Beavis sign

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 and sparsely placed. 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.

UK Parking Control Ltd.’s main car park sign near Findlay Road (the only one in
the car park displaying terms and conditions) is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see Figure 2).



Figure 2: main car park sign close-up




Figure 3: close-up photograph of entrance sign


These images were taken whilst standing at ground level looking up at the signs, which are positioned high on a poll with no light above the sign. The camera was held above head height so as to capture as close an image as possible, therefore it cannot be assumed that this is the view a person would have when standing below the sign. It should be emphasised that, when viewed from ground level, the text is even more difficult to read than it is in Figure 2 and 3.

Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:

“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms
and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

In September 2017 a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs. Following further research (on foot, during daylight), it is not disputed that UK Parking Control Ltd entrance sign meets these requirements in terms of wording/layout.

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

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

In disputing this point, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead. Also, it is not directly lit (see Figure 3). It may well be made of a retro-reflective material but this is irrelevant in this case as the positioning of the entrance sign is as such that vehicle headlights will notshine on it sufficiently so as to illuminate it.

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, that the text on the signs in the Findlay Road car park are too small. This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

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

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 UK Parking Control Ltd 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: http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm. As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
...and the same chart is reproduced here:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-
Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''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: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:

“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”

Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and UK Parking Control Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (too high, on the passenger side of the vehicle, not visible from drivers side), invisible after dark (not lit, too high to be lit by virtue of reflecting any vehicle headlights, particularly from a moving vehicle), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.

MsM09

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact
the driver who was liable for the charge

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. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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.''

4. 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 I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) 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 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:

• the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
• any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
• any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
• who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
• the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

5. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to
the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

UK Parking Control Ltd simply claims “The vehicle was recorded on our client’s private property at Findley Road Retail Park, B14 7SN from 06/04/2019 18:38 to 06/04/2019 20:51”. At no stage do UK Parking Control Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

UK Parking Control indicate an arrival and departure time in the NtK. It is not in the gift of UK Parking Control to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, UK Parking Control are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require UK Parking Control to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The UK Parking Control Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. This information does not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require UK Parking Control to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to park) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (2 hours and 12 minutes apart), it is vital that UK Parking Control produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be
used for

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. UK Parking Control Ltd.’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

The UK Parking Control main sign (see Figure 2) states:

“For these purposes your personal data including vehicle registrations and your movements within the cark park site may be processed by UK Parking Control Ltd. To enable performance of the parking contract and/or to protect legitimate interests as follows:

• Provided to Police or security organisations in order to prevent or detect criminal offences
• We may also share data about your vehicle with organisations that analyse consumer, driver and vehicle behaviour in this car park.”

Specifically missing from this information is the vital detail that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the information above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on UK Parking Control sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras.

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68:

Requirement for Transparency:

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

and Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent': http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Misleading omissions: 6.

(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph

(2)

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,

(b) the commercial practice hides material information,

(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''

It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.

MsM09

Ralph-y wrote: »

hi, and welcome to the forum ...


have you read through the newbies thread ?


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyouhttp://


have you complained to the gym yet ?


Read the newbies thread for examples of popla threads ...


good luck


Ralph:cool:

Thank you for your quick response. Unfortunately the gym group were completely unhelpful and there is a sign up in the gym saying that the car park is nothing to do with them. The example on grace periods in sticky post 3 was incredibly helpful and I pretty much used this

Coupon-mad

Re grace periods, I prefer to go for breaking the 'overstay' down into 6 minutes and 6 minutes (or whatever) setting it out like this as POPLA are more likely to be persuaded, IMHO:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75812666#Comment_75812666

Splitting the 'arrival time' section from the 'leaving time' section.

The_Deep

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

These are not fines, they are private invoices for the damage the PPC alleges they suffered when, allegedly, you breached a contract they allege you had agreed with them, we call them scams. They only need to be paid if a judge so directs,

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

MsM09

Thank you CouponMad I shall amend to include this and submit. Fingers crossed!

MsM09

The_Deep wrote: »

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

These are not fines, they are private invoices for the damage the PPC alleges they suffered when, allegedly, you breached a contract they allege you had agreed with them, we call them scams. They only need to be paid if a judge so directs,

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Thank you - any comment on the POPLA appeal? I know they are fraudsters and I’m not giving them any of my money but obviously I want to stop the chance of going to court as best I can

Ralph-y

"Unfortunately the gym group were completely unhelpful and there is a sign up in the gym saying that the car park is nothing to do with them"


go back and ask them who is to do with?



and you will be cancelling your membership with them if you do not get an answer .... as the membership is now far to ££££...


a landlord / owner is often the best way to sort things ..... carry on with the excellent advice above while you ask ...



Ralph:cool: