PCN ParkingEye Pangbourne Please Help

Jaysal

Hi All
I have read through the newbie thread and am at the now at POPLA appeal stage. I recently parked at Pangbourne Mens club and paid for a ticket costing £1:50. They say 2 hours costs £1.20 so believed i was paying for more than 2 hours. I was sent a fine by Parking eye starting I had stayed for 2 hours and 18 mins. I was with a disabled passenger who was wheelchair bound and this took a considerable time to transfer him both from and back into the car.

Would any one kindly have a read of my appeal and see if I am missing anything.

Much appreciated!
I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from ParkingEye at Pangbourne Working Mens Club because:

1) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied
2) Signage
3) No evidence of Landowner Authority
4) Amount demanded is a penalty


1) No period of grace given for the driver to read the signs within the car park and pay for ticket and no grace period was given for the group to safely exit the car park afterwards.
The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "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." In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “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 driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 17:22:39 and a departure time of 19:40:42 on the same date. Total time from driving in the main gate and exiting was 2 Hours 18mins. The driver paid for greater than 2 hours parking as seen on the receipt in ‘Doc. 1’.
After entering the car park the driver parked found a parking space and looked for where to pay for a ticket. This led to the first issue as this took a considerable amount of time as the driver had a passenger who was disabled and wheelchair bound requiring assistance to leave the car, as seen by the disabled badge in ‘Doc 1’. After having found that at the pay point it was not possible to pay by card they returned to the car to look for appropriate change. On eventually finding the appropriate change the driver paid a fee of £1.50. As per the parking charges, £1.20 allows for a duration of 2 hours. The driver exceeds this with his payment, paying a parking a fee of greater then 2 hours.
The driver purchased their ticket as soon as they possibly could, given the restrictions placed upon them through no fault of their own. It is not unreasonable at all to believe time would be required to help transfer a disabled passenger who is wheelchair bound from the car something which the driver has no control over and should not be punished for. It is also not wholly unreasonable to expect modern pay machines that accept cards, especially in a private car park. There are no signs or barriers at the main gate to let you know any of the parking rules or time and the first instruction the driver would come across only says ‘to pay at machine’ and is a long way into the car park high up a pole.
There is nothing to let you know that time you entered the gate and nothing to say you have been photographed on entry and time will start and end from when you pass the main gate, not when you actually park or have decided to stay. It is not unreasonable to expect a driver to time their stay from the moment they pay, I’d say it was highly irregular for an individual to note the time they enter a car park at the entrance rather than make note of the time when they are paying, and calculate their requirements from that. I believe that the 8 minutes it took to work out if they were going to park, read the rules and signs on very obscure signs regarding parking and taking into consideration the needs of the disabled passenger on board purchase the ticket to be completely ‘reasonable’ given the circumstances and within the BPA’s code of practice.

Later that day the driver exited the main gate at 19:40 less than 10 minutes after the paid time had ended at 19:30. When returning to their car within the 2 hours, the driver had to find their car, get the disabled passenger seated on the back seat in a small 4 door vehicle, and re-position their seat in to a comfortable and safe position. An additional 10 minutes is not an unreasonable time to safely get ready and leave the car park and is at the minimum 10 minutes allowed as a grace period as set out in the BPA code of practice.

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as set out in the BPA Code of Practice as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period in total by only 18 minutes (8 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 10 minutes after the parking period had ended).

2) 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:

Link removed

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:

Link removed

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:

Link removed

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

Link removed

''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:

Link removed

''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:

Link removed

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.

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) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.
Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld.

beamerguy

Similar case earlier this year.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5971638pangbourne

You could try to contact the OP by PM to which he will receive an email if he allows this

Jaysal

Thank I have done that
Does my appeal sound ok?

Coupon-mad

Total time from driving in the main gate and exiting was 2 Hours 18mins.

Don't ever mention '18 minutes' in your appeal. You have it at least twice an you need to get rid of that.

I like your description of why the arrival ad leaving time took longer than usual but you need to copy one of the POPLA appeals you find when you search:

split grace periods POPLA

You will see the golden rule is not to add the two times together like ParkingEye misleadingly have, but instead to separate the minutes (with sub headings 'on arrival' then 'on exit') and make sure the leaving grace period your appeal sets out is 10 mins or less, so that POPLA have nowhere to go with refusing it.

You should also provide evidence of the passenger's disability (Blue Badge scan, with their name/photo redacted?).

Drop this completely as an argument:

The driver paid for greater than 2 hours parking as seen on the receipt in ‘Doc. 1’.

Move well away from even trying that as it is not a winning point.

You didn't need to pay for more time, in fact, due to using under 10 mins on arrival and no more than 10 mins to lave, and the fact the passenger was disabled. Evidence all of that to POPLA with an appeal that never uses the phrase '18 minutes'.