ParkingEye Adelphi Liverpool

Poseidondevil

Hi guys,

Unfortunately it looks like I need the forums help once again!

will try to be brief and accurate.

Driver parked at a private car park monitored by ParkingEye at adelphi Liverpool. They knew it was pay and display but at the time could not see any pay machines. The signs near the car had 'pay by phone' instructions.
So the driver sat in car and setup an account online on mobile phone. The process was time consuming and ridiculous and eventually a parking fee was paid for 2 hours.

About 10 days later I receive the PCN from ParkingEye as the registered keeper of the car, which included entry/exit photos. Although it wasn't the golden ticket PCN, the PCN did not really mention why I was issued a PCN. All it stated was the Time in car park : 2 hours 10 minutes

As I've already had a similar problem with another parking company I went as outlined in the newbies sticky post and appealed to ParkingEye first (as the registered keeper, not declaring who was driving) and received a standard rejection letter with my POPLA reference and in that it was mentioned insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event

I find this quite annoying since they know well that the overstay was for 10 minutes and they are aware of the guidelines allowing for a minimum of 10 minutes overstay. So that being said should my POPLA appeal be centred on the grace period?

Umkomaas

All it stated was the Time in car park : 2 hours 10 minutes

If that's it, just 10 minutes over the paid for parking, that is well within the BPA's mandatory minimum 10 minute grace period at the end of parking. There is also a similar grace period at the start of parking, so calculate both periods, (say), 6 minutes to find a spot, register the app, read the T&Cs, make the payment, then (say) 4 minutes to exit the car park, getting out on to a busy road. There's the 10 minutes 'overstay' accounted for and well within the BPA minima.

You will need to jump through the initial appeal and (possibly) POPLA appeal hoops, at which point either PE will withdraw or POPLA will find in your favour.

While we don't often suggest the initial appeal is tampered with, I would add, in your case, 'Please note, the driver exited the car park within the grace period demanded by the BPA. Should you continue to pursue me, formal complaints will be made to both the BPA and the DVLA (via whom you have accessed my personal data, without reasonable cause)' - use the term 'reasonable cause' as it has specific meaning.

You might get away with just your initial appeal.

Poseidondevil

Thanks Umkomaas.

I actually did put in something similar in my intial appeal to them, but they just rejected it with a standard format email! They didn't bother to respond to the points I raised and said that "You have now come to the end of the internal appeal process" and gave me a POPLA code.

Coupon-mad

So the driver sat in car and setup an account online on mobile phone. The process was time consuming and ridiculous and eventually a parking fee was paid for 2 hours.

And that is what you tell POPLA by putting those facts into an example POPLA appeal, splitting that ten minutes into two sections ('on arrival, this is what happened and how long it took', and then: 'on exit, we left early/or we left well within the ten minutes mandatory grace period').

Search the forum for POPLA split grace periods and copy one already written and adapt it. Easy enough and certainly reasonable to take minutes to pay under those circs.

The_Deep

Parking Eye's signs are usually rubbish, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining 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.

Poseidondevil

Here's my draft, let me know if this is ok to send?

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA Reference XXXXXXX
Incident date XXXXXXX
Car registration XXXXXXX
PCN Number XXXXXXX
Operator Name PARKINGEYE

I write to make my formal appeal in respect of the above detailed Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at Britannia Adelphi Liverpool car park.
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied
2) The ANPR system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system
3) No evidence of Landowner Authority
4) Unclear and Inadequate Signage

1) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.

The CoP states:
“13.1 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.”
“13.2 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.”
“13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.”
“13.4 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.”

For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

In the case of this event, the first grace period must also allow time to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system in place at this site. A system which requires first time users to read the signs, go online, create an account with the system and register a payment card before a parking ticket can be purchased.

Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. 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,” he explains.

“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.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

The BPA (Kelvin Reynolds is the Director of Policy & Public Affairs) is on record as shown above, as saying that the 'observation period' at the start might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes, depending on various factors”.

The alleged overstay, given Kelvin Reynolds' defined 'observation time' and the type of businesses at the location is certainly possible. Time would have been taken just driving in, no doubt in a queue, dodging groups of pedestrians carrying shopping and also waiting for other cars turning and reversing to park or leave, before reaching an empty bay then parking. After that, an average driver must unstrap any children, buggy, bags, then go to the display machine, read the terms and conditions and also the instructions of the machine to get the ticket.

The arrival time is recorded on the PCN as 20:28:29 and Departure Time: 22:39:04 which equates to 2 hours 10 minutes. Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park and unreliability of timestamped evidence on the photographs supplied and time associated with the ‘Pay By Phone’ system, I contend that the PCN was not properly given.

ParkingEye are using ANPR technology to calculate the duration of stay from recorded entry and exit times. This duration of stay is in fact ‘time on site’ and not time ‘parked’. By issuing this PCN based on the entry/exit times, ParkingEye have failed to apply the MINIMUM grace period and so have breached section 13 of the BPA CoP.

2) The ANPR system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system

ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) records show no parking time, merely photos of my car driving in and out. 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 By Phone’ system which the driver can only access after parking and then by undertaking a lengthy online registration process in order to make payment. The exit photo is not evidence of ‘parking time’ at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the ‘Pay By Phone’ clock nor even to relate to the same parking event that evening.

The driver had great difficulty paying for parking in this event due to the ‘Pay By Phone’ method instructed by the small and unclear signs in the car park. The signs, which instruct the driver to pay for parking over an automated phone line, failing to declare that an account must be created online first. The subsequent time attributed to the automated call and then to creating an online account and registering a payment card before being able to make payment (evidenced in screenshot below) has taken significant time in this event, time which has secretly counted against the permitted parking duration, unknowingly to the driver due to the breach of BPA CoP section 21.1 as detailed below.

(bank statement screen grab of payment to PE here)

The driver was unaware that they were required to pay from the point of entry to the car park and not from the time they purchased their ticket. ParkingEye is using ANPR technology to record and calculate the duration of stay for vehicles so has failed to apply the appropriate grace period, both at the beginning and end of the parking event.

Section 21.1 of the British Parking Assoaciation Code of Practice states:

“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 must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

The signage displayed in the car park does display a logo associated with ANPR, however the signage does not inform the driver that the data captured is used to calculate their stay or any statement that makes this implicit to the driver. As ParkingEye have not met the BPA requirements with regards to ANPR signage, I contest that the driver has not been made aware of this and could only reasonably assume the time stated on their ticket as the start of the parking time.

The arrival time is recorded on the PCN as 20:28:29 and Departure Time: 22:39:04 which equates to 2 hours 10 minutes and does NOT include the time that it took the driver to find a space, park, read the signs, create an online account and purchase a ticket using the ‘Pay By Phone’ system.

3) 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 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

4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

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:

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.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

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

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 POFA 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:

archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

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:

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:

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.

In addition, it is mandated in the BPA CoP that the operator displays the BPA and AOS on all sites. Section 28.6 of the CoP states:
“You should display the BPA and AOS logos on all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly.”
The driver has no recollection of seeing these logos displayed, therefore I put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide evidence of this site displaying these logos.

Conclusion

ParkingEye have failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice on multiple accounts.

I contend it is wholly unreasonable and unfair to issue this PCN for overstaying a parking ticket purchased when the ‘Pay By Phone’ service requires a lengthy online registration process prior to paying when the parking timer has already started on entering the site, thus not applying the grace period and breaching the code.

The Terms and Conditions on the signs within the car park make no suggestion of what the ANPR images will be used for, a breach of BPA code, and so it can only be reasonably assumed that the parking start time is from the moment the parking ticket is purchased.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

Umkomaas

I've skim read your appeal (there's only so many times the same template stuff can be read in detail!). Unless I've missed it, you still need to spell out the usage of the grace periods - X minutes for entry and associated actions + Y minutes (and reasons) to exit the car park = 10 minutes : 35 seconds (put it in precisely. Many POPLA assessors need to be taken through this Janet and John stylee!).

Read in conjunction with Coupon-mad's post #4.

Poseidondevil

So you mean for example - it took me 7 minutes to make the call, sign up via internet and then make the payment and 3 minutes to exit car park since its a busy car park in the heart of the city on saturday night?

Coupon-mad

Yes I already said that:

Search the forum for POPLA split grace periods and copy one already written and adapt it. Easy enough and certainly reasonable to take minutes to pay under those circs

...and you will find that exact wording to copy when you search the forum for:

POPLA split grace periods

Our examples are already written, with (a) 'on arrival' and (b) 'when exiting' with all the right BPA CoP quotes in the appropriate place. This is already done umpteen times.

Just needs a search - change the ADVANCED search default to
SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS.

Poseidondevil

Made the changes as you guys suggested. How does it look now?


Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA Reference XXXXXXX
Incident date XXXXXXX
Car registration XXXXXXX
PCN Number XXXXXXX
Operator Name PARKINGEYE

I write to make my formal appeal in respect of the above detailed Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at Britannia Adelphi Liverpool car park.
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied
2) The ANPR system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system
3) No evidence of Landowner Authority
4) Unclear and Inadequate Signage

1) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied
1. The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end and a separate 'observation period' at the start. For the avoidance of doubt this is NOT a single period with a ceiling of just ten minutes, and the authority for this view is in this BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs where he states on behalf of the BPA that there is a difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our 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,” he explains.

“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.”

BPA (18.5) states ''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''.

(a) On arrival - the 'observation period':
As it was Saturday night and the car park is situated in the centre of Liverpool there was traffic build up on entering this car park, because it is narrow/single lane entry, and the drive-thru is on the same route as the car park and the exit. Vehicles were entering and leaving all at the same time and there is always a traffic jam at this site when entering and leaving. There is also a fairly restricted width of the car park spaces, causing difficulties in waiting for cars to manoeuvre to park or leave spaces, then difficulties for the driver in then parking their own car.

I am a witness to this as I was an occupant of the car as well as its keeper. In the case of this event, the first grace period must also allow time to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system in place at this site. A system which requires first time users to read the signs, go online, create an account with the system and register a payment card before a parking ticket can be purchased. I can assert that it took 6 - 7 minutes before we were able to park, download the app and actually register on the app and at no time did we read any term that told us that the 'observation' time had actually started when we were in the queue and not even past the entrance threshold.

Even if it had said that, observation and grace periods must still be factored in, given the facts relating to each site, and 6 - 7 minutes is a reasonable grace/observation period to enter this car park, then queue behind the drive-thru traffic and give way to exiting cars before reaching one of the small spaces, then carefully park, then finally seek out one of the ludicrously high new signs and read it, which is the only point at which any contractual parking licence may have started (only when the driver has had a fair opportunity to read the terms and decide whether to stay, as Kelvin Reynolds stated).

Notwithstanding the BPA rules, relevant contract law also dictates that consumers must be given an opportunity to consider terms and conditions before entering into a consumer contract, especially where one of the terms is unexpected (new terms for this site) and onerous. POPLA Assessors have stated in recent decisions that a reasonable time period for this would be up to about 10 minutes. In this case, therefore, the 6 - 7 minutes taken before being able to park and read the new signs at this particular site is a reasonable period.

(b) On leaving - the 'grace period'
BPA's Code of Practice (13.2) states: ''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 (13.4) reiterates this fact: ''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.''

Given the timings shown by the images (and subtracting the reasonable time explained above, on arrival) the operator is alleging that the driver exceeded the parking time after the end of the parking event, by 3 - 4 minutes. This is explained by the narrow entry/exit lanes and spaces and the queues for the shared drive-thru entry, meaning that even when a driver gets back to their car on time, they are prevented from leaving immediately due to the queues and restricted space in this site. As I was an occupant of the car I can attest that this was the case on the material date and that the driver did not actually park in a space for more than 2 hours, thus there was no parking contravention at all.

I have also uploaded an aerial map of this car park and drive-through, to illustrate my point.

The Operator has displayed on their PCN only the entry and exit times from the car park. These are not the 'period of parking' although the law requires this to be stated, and to any right-thinking person the only reason for this is to engineer an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18 - the views of MPs during the Parking CoP Bill reading) by misleading POPLA. Taking into account the travel time to a parking space and travelling back out of the car park the period of parking here falls comfortably within the mandatory observation and grace periods as outlined above.

As such, 3- 4 minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended. The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice incorrectly. Accordingly, POPLA must allow this appeal.
2) The ANPR system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system

ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) records show no parking time, merely photos of my car driving in and out. 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 By Phone’ system which the driver can only access after parking and then by undertaking a lengthy online registration process in order to make payment. The exit photo is not evidence of ‘parking time’ at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the ‘Pay By Phone’ clock nor even to relate to the same parking event that evening.

The driver had great difficulty paying for parking in this event due to the ‘Pay By Phone’ method instructed by the small and unclear signs in the car park. The signs, which instruct the driver to pay for parking over an automated phone line, failing to declare that an account must be created online first. The subsequent time attributed to the automated call and then to creating an online account and registering a payment card before being able to make payment (evidenced in screenshot below) has taken significant time in this event, time which has secretly counted against the permitted parking duration, unknowingly to the driver due to the breach of BPA CoP section 21.1 as detailed below.

(bank statement screen grab of payment to PE here)

The driver was unaware that they were required to pay from the point of entry to the car park and not from the time they purchased their ticket. ParkingEye is using ANPR technology to record and calculate the duration of stay for vehicles so has failed to apply the appropriate grace period, both at the beginning and end of the parking event.

Section 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states:

“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 must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

The signage displayed in the car park does display a logo associated with ANPR, however the signage does not inform the driver that the data captured is used to calculate their stay or any statement that makes this implicit to the driver. As ParkingEye have not met the BPA requirements with regards to ANPR signage, I contest that the driver has not been made aware of this and could only reasonably assume the time stated on their ticket as the start of the parking time.

The arrival time is recorded on the PCN as 20:28:29 and Departure Time: 22:39:04 which equates to 2 hours 10 minutes and does NOT include the time that it took the driver to find a space, park, read the signs, create an online account and purchase a ticket using the ‘Pay By Phone’ system.

3) 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 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

4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

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:

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.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

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

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 POFA 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:

archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

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:

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:

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.

In addition, it is mandated in the BPA CoP that the operator displays the BPA and AOS on all sites. Section 28.6 of the CoP states:
“You should display the BPA and AOS logos on all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly.”
The driver has no recollection of seeing these logos displayed, therefore I put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide evidence of this site displaying these logos.

Conclusion

ParkingEye have failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice on multiple accounts.

I contend it is wholly unreasonable and unfair to issue this PCN for overstaying a parking ticket purchased when the ‘Pay By Phone’ service requires a lengthy online registration process prior to paying when the parking timer has already started on entering the site, thus not applying the grace period and breaching the code.

The Terms and Conditions on the signs within the car park make no suggestion of what the ANPR images will be used for, a breach of BPA code, and so it can only be reasonably assumed that the parking start time is from the moment the parking ticket is purchased.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

Umkomaas

Looks a lot better on the grace periods, with a split of the two timings amounting to the 10 minutes 'overstay'.

You might want to add, to finally nail this section, that even discounting any grace period for the entry process, PE have failed to even provide the BPA mandatory minimum 10 minutes to leave the car park, and as you have raised this breach of the BPA Code of Practice, you would expect POPLA to exercise their obligation to report such a serious breach (which has also resulted in PE accessing your personal data from the DVLA 'without reasonable cause') to the BPA for further investigation.