Brittania Parking Ticket POPLA Advice

Daytona246

part 2


[FONT=&quot]
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:

hvvp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

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

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. 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.

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

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

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

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

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

hvvp://vvv-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

hxxp://vvv.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:

hxxp://vvv.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:

hxxp://vvv.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 (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]
[FONT=&quot]The Entrance sign next to the main road (xxxxxxx Highway). Recently visiting the premises in June, after careful investigation is obvious any vehicle entering cannot stop or slow down to read and notice the sign without obstructing the public and busy flowing traffic. The photo evidence fails to show this. Furthermore the tight turnings would force the driver to fully concentrate on the road to prevent risk of colliding with oncoming vehicles maneuvering inside the car park.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6) Photo evidence appears doctored[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle; most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged. The driver is confident they did not stay for the claimed time the images Britannia have provided.

I would challenge Britannia to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge Britannia that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of photographs, as the date stamps have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data). Britannia claiming they are satisfied with the technology used does not prove any accuracy! [/FONT]
7. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The driver also spent money in the pub so therefore is a paying customer. How can Britannia be claiming loss of earnings when the landowner made a profit from the driver using the facilities which should negate any alleged losses claimed by Britannia. The amount of the fine is clearly a disproportionate penalty as they have made no loss and nor have Britannia. I ask for Britannia to provide evidence which shows the alleged loss of earnings.


8 The Landowner has confirmed the cancellation of the PCN
Upon communicating with the landowner, I have had multiple emails confirming the manager of the pub has cancelled the PCN. These are attached and can be provided. I have had no confirmation from Britannia regarding the cancellation, but two repeat final demand letters threatening extra costs of £60 which is ABUSE OR PROCESS. This is prior to the POPLA expiring! I am in the process of complaining to the BPA and my local MP regarding this.


[FONT=&quot]I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.[/FONT]

Le_Kirk

You should drop your point 7 as that is an old argument and has been seen off by the Beavis case.

usernamenotfound

Hi new to forum,

I'm getting different answers to this question.
Is a POPLA code not valid within 28 days of the operator refusal?

@Coupon-Mad has written 32 days which is contrary to what my letter states as well as other pages on the internet.

Le_Kirk

1. You should read the NEWBIE sticky where you will find answers to your questions.
2. If Coupon-mad says it last for 32 days then it does. POPLA like to play games with the 28/32.
3. Start your own thread rather than hi-jacking one from3 months ago.