Parking charge notice

KeithP

Look around. See how others are doing it.
There is a thread right next to yours at this very moment entitled POPLA Appeal - MET Parking Stansted. The detail will be different but see how that is structured.
And here's another thread on the first page - POPLA appeal Letter - Parking Eye.

I can only guess you haven't looked at the many example PoPLA appeals linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread?
Some of those are fully illustrated and run to twenty odd pages.

waamo

Why have you put Future Parking in your opening post but Smart in your appeal?

Fruitcake

You haven't edited your posts to remove information about who parked. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper.

The Inadequate Signage point alone from the NEWBIES is longer than all your posts put together. You need to look at the appeal points suggested by Redx and take a good long look at post 3 of the NEWBIES as well as other PoPLA appeals. There is a whole sticky thread full of those.

mission1968

Does this look better

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I’m writing to you to express my concern over the unfair PCN sent to the keeper of the car, number plate: XXXXXXXX

The vehicle was captured entered the car park at 1.17pm and left the car park at 2:36pm. This is only a 18 minute overstay which occurred because the driver of the vehicle had parking difficulties ie parking, finding change writing registration down to input it into the machine ect and un- loading the car. The driver got an hour ticket and he returned to the vehicle on time and had no clue the time would of been from entering the car park not what the actual ticket said.



Below is the relating paragraph from the BPA CoP which Future Parking is not following:

3. 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:

“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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.”

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

“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”


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.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) and (13.4) clearly state that the Grace Period to enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst (13.2) and (13.4) do 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 each should apply to (13.1) 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.”

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit is in question, since UKPC observed the vehicle at 13:53pm and issued the ticket at exactly the same time at 13:53pm giving an unreasonable grace period.

It is given that:

a) The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source of lighting.
b) The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage throughout the car park in question (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.2 and 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
c) There is no marked parking bay throughout the venue which causes confusion to the applicability of the UKPC contract that was never entered into in the first place.
d) The failure to light signage so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
e) The lengthiness of UKPC signage (in terms of word count) all written in tiny text the across of the sign (see Figure 3)



All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign indicating entrance
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
• Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness
• Decipher the confusing information being presented
• Decide not to park and therefore not entering into a contract
• Return to car and safely leave the car park


So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of the duration the vehicle was parked for to allow a grace period 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. 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.

2. 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 authorized 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 POPLAbut 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 CoP) 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 CoP 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:

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

Redx

Incorrect numbering grace periods is point 1 , not 3

No numbered bullet point menu at the start of the legal arguments

Not set out in a logical manner

Not enough clearly defined legal points

Missing signage point for a start

Read a recent popla appeal that has all these elements to see how it is set out clearly, so that an assessor knows what each section is about

mission1968

Update ...

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I’m writing to you to express my concern over the unfair PCN sent to the keeper of the car, number plate: XXXXXXXX

The vehicle was captured entered the car park at 1.17pm and left the car park at 2:36pm. This is only a 18 minute overstay which occurred because the driver of the vehicle had parking difficulties ie parking, finding change writing registration down to input it into the machine ect and un- loading the car. The driver got an hour ticket and he returned to the vehicle on time and had no clue the time would of been from entering the car park not what the actual ticket said.



Below is the relating paragraph from the BPA CoP which Future Parking is not following:

1. Grace period is unfair
2. The amount charged is a disguised penalty out of all proportion to any legitimate interest and cannot be commercially justified 
3. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act.
4. Confusing Unclear ambiguous inadequate signage so no valid contract formed.  
5. The ANPR system is unreliable



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:

“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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.”

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

“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”


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.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) and (13.4) clearly state that the Grace Period to enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst (13.2) and (13.4) do 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 each should apply to (13.1) 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.”

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit is in question, since UKPC observed the vehicle at 13:53pm and issued the ticket at exactly the same time at 13:53pm giving an unreasonable grace period.

It is given that:

a) The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source of lighting.
b) The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage throughout the car park in question (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.2 and 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
c) There is no marked parking bay throughout the venue which causes confusion to the applicability of the UKPC contract that was never entered into in the first place.
d) The failure to light signage so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
e) The lengthiness of UKPC signage (in terms of word count) all written in tiny text the across of the sign (see Figure 3)



All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign indicating entrance
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
• Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness
• Decipher the confusing information being presented
• Decide not to park and therefore not entering into a contract
• Return to car and safely leave the car park


So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of the duration the vehicle was parked for to allow a grace period 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. 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.
2. 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 authorized 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 POPLAbut 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 CoP) 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 CoP 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:

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


2. The amount charged is a disguised penalty out of all proportion to any legitimate interest and cannot be commercially justified 

The amount charged is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified. This was no agreed contract and the sum is unfair, unreasonable and unrecoverable. The charge from Parking Eye as a third-party business agent is an unfair unenforceable penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgement as this is a paid car park. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all. This charge is for an alleged breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified, that Parking Eye who are the non-land-owning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages.

This is different to the Beavis case, as it is a pay and display car park and therefore there is no compelling commercial interest in maintaining turnover. For the Beavis case, it is argued that this charge has been artificially inflated and Parking Eye have failed to disengage the 'penalty rule' by virtue of a want of good faith and also a failure in their duty to deal fairly with consumers and a failure to follow the requirements of their industry’s Code of Practice. £100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff. Parking Eye cannot justify how an alleged over-stay in a paid 24-hour car park incurred a loss of £100. They have failed to supply sufficient evidence to justify this cost because of the plain fact that it is unjustifiable; it is an arbitrary figure that they have invented. And there is no commercial justification as the landholder has no incentive to maintain turnover of spaces at that location as a motorist can stay longer in the car park if required and in fact can stay all day and night if they wish by paying £20.00. As such it is an unenforceable penalty. The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area.

For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has lost as a result of the car being parked at the car park, is required and should then add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of costs such as 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax-deductible business costs like administration, accounting & equipment. The staff hired are already paid to do their jobs so there is no “loss” for their normal activity as apparently only 1% of cases follow the POPLA route. Therefore, these costs are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.

Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision was justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility. As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification. As this was a Paying car park, the Notice to Keeper has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed. On the Notice To Keeper it only states that the car was in the car park for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was an overstay or failure to pay. This does not create any certainty of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder what the hourly rate tariff even was and whether the driver paid nothing, or paid too little, or paid only for half an hour or an hour, or paid in full but put in the wrong car registration, or some other event. This Operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect/record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able – and indeed are required under the POFA – to state on the Notice to Keeper the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued.

3. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act.

Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act. Failed to invoke keeper liability as the notice to keeper omits wording required by Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. They have not included on the notice to keeper about how much has been paid and how much remains unpaid.
(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full
(c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of the drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.
(c) specify the total amount of the parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is-
(i) specified in the notice: and
(ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper(see sub-paragraph (4)

I refer to the Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Parking Eye as a Notice to keeper. I confirm that I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I formally challenge the validity of this Parking Charge Notice. The strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA have to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge.

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
(c) inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i) specified in the notice; and
(ii) no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);
(d) inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(e) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made;
(f) specify the time when the notice is given and the date.
(3) The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices each specifying different parts of a single period of parking).
(4) The notice must be given—
(a) before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b) while the vehicle is stationary, by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge
(9) (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(9) (5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

4. Signs

18.1) A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. 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. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.
18.3) 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.

The signage states a table of tariffs. The entrance road from which the car park is accessed is 15mph approach speed in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Appendix B the lack of clear indication of charges being applicable to a person driving past the sign is insufficient to form any contract. There is no notification on the entrance sign that says there is any “free period of parking” during which there is time allowed to park read the terms and conditions and decide whether to enter into any contract or not, which is a requirement under contract law. The other signs are on high poles from the pay machine. that there is paid parking for up to 24 hours. It says that parking can be up to one hour at £1.00 charge then up to three hours parking at £4.00 charge then up to 8 hours parking at £5.00 charge then up to 12 hours parking at £10.00 charge then up to 24 hours parking at £20.00, but nowhere do the signs indicate that the extra time could be purchased at any time so therefore a person could summarise that the purchase has to take place on arrival not when someone returns to their vehicle after the parking hours purchased has been reached. The ticket issued does not detail the expiry time or that extra time can be purchased on return to the vehicle. Therefore the signage is unclear and inadequate as it does not explain about the purchase of further time and when this is allowed. For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not. I also believe that a person can pay on entry, when you get back, or top up if there is an overstay but this is not listed anywhere. Also, charges do not apply for less than 15 minutes which is also not listed anywhere!

5. The ANPR system is unreliable

I refer to Section 20, Paragraph 5 (S20P5) of the British Parking Association Code of Practice:
“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

Parking Eye is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require Parking Eye to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. The signs also fail to inform that actual entry where the cameras are start the period of so called “parking” and only exiting past the cameras completes that period. The total time spent parked in a bay is different. As such the contractual parking time inferred is insufficient to form a proper contract.

The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate Parking Eye’s evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event.

No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA COP breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case).

This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with records and photos.
21.1) You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 )Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.
21.3 )You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
Time in the Car Park is not a period of Parking. The motorist must be given time to park and read the signs and find a ticket machine and have time to leave the site at the end of parking, and also search for a member of the Parking Team to enquire about anything that is confusing about the sign, for example whether further parking can be paid for on return to the vehicle. It is confusing about when to pay this. The ticket is also confusing as when you take a ticket out of the machine it is no indication on when you entered the car park and when you should get back to your vehicle, as the only information on the ticket is the time you put your registration number into the machine. It is therefore not indicative of the time entering the car park and cannot be used as accurate reference as does not state when the free period ends. The signs say to take a ticket after putting in your registration but it does accept any registration put in so there is no room for error, nowhere does it explain what to then do with the ticket, nor what to do after this? So, you have the ticket with no further reminders that you only have a certain amount of parking and may purchase further hours (and if that is the case when you can purchase it) or if a person is late back may get fined £100. No reminder of charges and penalties, very misleading and confusing once again. The small print on the signs also take ages to read and a person may even need to then go back to collect their glasses from their car as the print is so tiny. This also requires good lighting and are too high for shorter people to read. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states the motorist must be given time to read the signs and time to leave the site at end of parking.

The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015, states that if drivers are “…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.” (18.5)

On the basis of all the points I have raised in my POPLA appeal the parking charge notice fails to meet standards set in the British Parking Association Code of Practice. I reject the charge and would appreciate that you review all my points and allow the appeal.

mission1968

Is this looking ok

Coupon-mad

The vehicle was captured entered the car park at 1.17pm and left the car park at 2:36pm. This is only a 18 minute overstay

NEVER state what the total alleged overstay was!

Style your POPLA appeal like I advised here. Splitting the grace periods works:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76157181#Comment_76157181

1505grandad

The times are not those mentioned in #1

There are two paras numbered "2" - one of which (landowner Authority) is not even mentioned in the menu

The ppc appears to be named "Future" but UKPC and PE are also named as ppc in the appeal.

mission1968

Hi all just an update to my appeal i have received a reply off popla with future parking evidence . What do i do now