Wye Valley Visitor Centre Parking Eye - Broken parking machine

G_star_girl

I received a PCN for overstaying a paid ticket by 23 minutes at the butterfly zoo due to ANPR cameras clocking your entry time rather than the time shown on the pay and display ticket.
I left the car park before the paid 4 hours was up on my pay and display ticket however the reason for the overstay in addition to a usual grace period of getting out/in the car, unloading etc. was that the parking machine was being fixed by a parking attendant therefore I could not purchase a ticket. The parking attendant advised me that I could pay afterwards but you receive money off entry to the visitor attraction so I waited with other customers for this to be fixed. Not at any time did he advise to add additional time on as they use entry time not pay and display ticker time. I put all of this info into the initial appeal to ParkingEye however they rejected this by just stating that insufficient payment had been made and did not address the issue of the parking meter being unusable. I am looking to seek advice on the best way to obtain evidence that the machine was out of order from PE? As the visitor attraction have just said that PE will know that the machine was out of order which doesn't help me right now.

In addition, are there any arguments against putting the time at which you pay for the ticket on the pay and display ticket rather than the time at which the ANPR camera clocks your entry as they clearly have this information when you enter your reg plate and this is very misleading.

Any advice would be really gratefully received in order to write my POPLA appeal. I have read the Newbies thread and have started to draft the letter out using the templated points with the main arguments being around grace period, ANPR accuracy and compliance and the car park had unclear, non-obvious, signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time. But the machine being out of action is my main point I am appealing against (well in my eyes). Has anyone had any successful appeals along the same vein as this one I can take pointers from?

Thank you!

Redx

read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread for popla examples

use the forum search box and suitable search words like FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT and broken PDT machines to read similar cases, even if they werent at the WYE VALLEY


post your proposed draft below , for critique , because nobody here will write it for you

The_Deep

IMO, PE signs leave much to be desired. I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Woody510

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74850073#Comment_74850073

MistyZ

Check out this POPLA appeal (the version posted on the last thread):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6015202/incomplete-vrn-popla-appeal-stage&highlight=broken+pdt+machines

That one was uncontested by Britannia but I think there's a lot you may be able to use.

Landowners who contract out parking to PPCs and then suggest that victims appeal to the PPC as if they were run by fair & reasonable people really irritate me. Plus, for some reason, lots of victims do not bother complaining to the landowner. It's as if PPC infestation were an act of God and nobody need take any responsibility for their presence and outrageous actions!

Who is the landowner or land management agent? If it is not the Visitor Centre itself then they can tell you who it is. They may try not to, but of course they know and this is not restricted information.

Find out and complain LIKE HELL to the landowner ideally before the POPLA stage. Insist that the charge be cancelled. You have well and truly been dumped in it and there are more formal but nonetheless convincing ways of expressing that.

G_star_girl

Thank you all for your advice. I will edit and craft my response in light of all your help and useful links as well as do a LOT of complaining to the attraction and investigate who the landowner. I feel very strongly about this and want to take action against this happening to others. I'll pop my draft up once I'm happier with it. TIA.

G_star_girl

6. The car park had Unclear, Non-obvious, Non-BPA-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time

It is denied that the signage seen by the driver on 21 June 2019 sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

ParkingEye Ltd need to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that ParkingEye is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount that was paid in the PDT machine on site.

Upon on returning to the site in question, the signage is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing. The signs were not visible (readable) to be seen by any driver entering the car park from the main road. The small sign which is also high up does not state clearly that it is affiliated with ParkingEye, is partially obscured by a much larger sign directing traffic and placed at an intersection with extremely confusing road markings. All of these combine to make this initial sign easily missed. The signs within the parking area are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

<INSERT IMAGE OF SIGNS>

There was no information about £100 nor any terms and conditions applying on the PDT machine itself and the machine instructions advise to check the time - see image below (not stating to check the time at which you drove into the car park - but the time which is understood to be the time you are reading the PDT machine instructions.

<INSERT IMAGE OF P&D MACHINE>

The driver was relying on the pay and display ticket (now thrown away as the driver had done nothing wrong) and left the site at 14:51 before it expired. As there are no signs to explain otherwise, the ANPR system cannot secretly calculate the time from entry from the road. Now I am aware of the system in place, it is complicated because drivers are expected to recall what time they arrived. Such systems have been criticised as unfair and not consumer-friendly.

These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by ParkingEye to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, states that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area.

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 small font size and high up location and not enough mentions of the £sum itself at the entrance sign nor on the PDT machine - 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:

<INSERT LINK>

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:

<INSERT LINK>

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.

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, some of these signs do not feature the parking charge nor clearly enough mention the charge. 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 or on the PDT machine either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one or saw it whilst paying the parking tariff.

<INSERT SIGNAGE IMAGES>

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:

<INSERT LINK>

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

<INSERT LINK>

''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:

<INSERT LINK>

''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:

<INSERT LINK>

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.

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point mentioned above.

-END-

Coupon-mad

Remove #2 and #3 and #4 as they have no chance at POPLA and are really old.

I left the car park before the paid 4 hours was up on my pay and display ticket

What time did the PDT run out and what time have they captured the car leaving?

You need to split the times and make it clear you left x minutes early. Search the forum for:

split grace POPLA

to see how to split the two times, which in your case will be a 'minus' at the end!

G_star_girl

Thanks @Coupon-mad - I will do just that. The PDT ran out at 14:55 and I left at 14:51.

Coupon-mad

OK so change the first point, using the split grace periods example, which I believe helps POPLA see the point a bit more clearly. I wish you'd filmed him fixing the machine!