We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Euro Car Parks POPLA appeal Letter
blindsided
Posts: 6 Forumite
Hi, I received a PCN after the driver of my car overstayed at a Euro car park site in Bracknell. The frustrating part is that the overstay only occurred as the parking restrictions had changed - which I only found out had changed after searching facebook for 'parking fines at the peel centre'. My argument is that the new signage is identical to the previous signage and that there is nothing to state parking has changed therefore it is easy to over stay and not discover anything has changed in the carpark until the driver tries to pay and realises the machines have been removed.
I am not a good writer and have found this process overwhelming and the letter very tricky to write using the correct language. Any help and guidance you can provide on my draft response below would be most appreciated - I have copied, pasted and edited some bits from other people's POPLA appeals. I need to submit this by September 12th as that will be 28 days since my appeal to Euro Car Parks was rejected.
TIA
DRAFT 1:
Euro car parks >>>Should this be Euro car parks or POPLA's address???
30 Dorset Square
London
NW1 6QJ
Dear Sir or Madam,
Reference number: xxxxxxx
Vehicle registration number: xxxxxxx
I was issued with a parking ticket on xx/xx/2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:
• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
In my case, the £60 now £100 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner as the driver only overstayed by 23 minutes. I therefore feel the amount you have asked for is excessive – a lost car parking ticket charge is usually no more than £10!
• Error on Appeal response from Euro Car Parks
On the Appeal response related to xxxxxxx (please see attached) there is an error. The appeal response letter states ‘Date of Issue: 07/07/2019’ however the registered note to keeper states ‘Date of issue as 17/07/2019’ bringing into question the validity of the parking charge.
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.
The car park in question has no clear signage to denote any recent changes in parking restrictions. The appellant argues that in April 2019 it was possible to park at the Peel Centre Bracknell and pay for any additional parking should the driver exceed 2 hours free. The appellant argues that there is no clear signage to denote a change to this ‘contract’ and that current signage (please see attached image provided by Euro Car Parks) appears almost identical to signage used in April 2019 presumably to match their company branding which the appellant states is misleading. The appellant argues it is therefore possible to park at the Peel Centre, overstay the free parking limit but be unaware they are not able to pay for additional parking until approaching a pay machine that is no longer there (please see attached picture of the area where the pay machine used to be which has no details of why they have been removed nor any help or advice if a driver has unintentionally over stayed the new restrictions). Furthermore, the appellant argues that at the time, despite having a ‘parking office’ at the other end of the car park, it is possible that the driver may not have been able to speak with a parking officer as it is not manned 24hours a day. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence, [explain your evidence here & include and refer to documentary evidence if you have any], I have gathered as proof.
Furthermore, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
link here
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 here
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. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed.
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 here
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
link here
''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 here
''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 here]
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.
I am not a good writer and have found this process overwhelming and the letter very tricky to write using the correct language. Any help and guidance you can provide on my draft response below would be most appreciated - I have copied, pasted and edited some bits from other people's POPLA appeals. I need to submit this by September 12th as that will be 28 days since my appeal to Euro Car Parks was rejected.
TIA
DRAFT 1:
Euro car parks >>>Should this be Euro car parks or POPLA's address???
30 Dorset Square
London
NW1 6QJ
Dear Sir or Madam,
Reference number: xxxxxxx
Vehicle registration number: xxxxxxx
I was issued with a parking ticket on xx/xx/2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:
• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
In my case, the £60 now £100 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner as the driver only overstayed by 23 minutes. I therefore feel the amount you have asked for is excessive – a lost car parking ticket charge is usually no more than £10!
• Error on Appeal response from Euro Car Parks
On the Appeal response related to xxxxxxx (please see attached) there is an error. The appeal response letter states ‘Date of Issue: 07/07/2019’ however the registered note to keeper states ‘Date of issue as 17/07/2019’ bringing into question the validity of the parking charge.
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.
The car park in question has no clear signage to denote any recent changes in parking restrictions. The appellant argues that in April 2019 it was possible to park at the Peel Centre Bracknell and pay for any additional parking should the driver exceed 2 hours free. The appellant argues that there is no clear signage to denote a change to this ‘contract’ and that current signage (please see attached image provided by Euro Car Parks) appears almost identical to signage used in April 2019 presumably to match their company branding which the appellant states is misleading. The appellant argues it is therefore possible to park at the Peel Centre, overstay the free parking limit but be unaware they are not able to pay for additional parking until approaching a pay machine that is no longer there (please see attached picture of the area where the pay machine used to be which has no details of why they have been removed nor any help or advice if a driver has unintentionally over stayed the new restrictions). Furthermore, the appellant argues that at the time, despite having a ‘parking office’ at the other end of the car park, it is possible that the driver may not have been able to speak with a parking officer as it is not manned 24hours a day. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence, [explain your evidence here & include and refer to documentary evidence if you have any], I have gathered as proof.
Furthermore, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
link here
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 here
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. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed.
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 here
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
link here
''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 here
''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 here]
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.
0
Comments
-
Don't put links in POPLA appeals as you are giving the assessors excuses not to read stuff you may be relying on. Just copy and paste whatever it is the link was referring to and embed it in the document.0
-
• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
In my case, the £60 now £100 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner as the driver only overstayed by 23 minutes. I therefore feel the amount you have asked for is excessive – a lost car parking ticket charge is usually no more than £10!
That bit is completely irrelevant so leave it out.0 -
Do a forum search ** on keywords 'ECP POPLA and look for some very recent winning ECP POPLA appeals. Use those to inform your own, especially the generic elements to pad out your specific appeal point about the change of parking conditions.
You haven't stated how the conditions have changed - that needs to be stated. Do you know when they changed? You need to quote from the BPA Code of Practice the requirements placed on operators to highlight such changes, especially to motorists who frequently use the car park and the previous rules are second nature to them.
** HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:
Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thank you I have removed the links and inserted the images - will save as a pdf for submission0
-
@Umkomaas Thank you for the tips on using the search function, I wasn't aware you could do this. I have searched using 'ECP POPLA change in parking rules', 'change in parking rules' 'parking condition change' but could only find a post that was relating to bylaws.
I have had another at my draft and have added more 'generic' information as well as providing more info on the changes in conditions and a reference to the BPA code of practice. I will add the new draft in a moment. I never considered myself a vulnerable person but I am finding this all very stressful.0 -
Dear Sir or Madam,
Reference number: xxxxxxx
Vehicle registration number: xxxxxxx
I was issued with a parking ticket on xx/xx/2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:
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.
The car park in question has no clear signage to denote any recent changes in parking restrictions. The appellant argues that in April 2019 it was possible to park at the Peel Centre Bracknell and pay for any additional parking should the driver exceed 2 hours free, the appellant notes that it is now apparent that parking changes were made in May 2019 but there is no signage to denote this. The appellant argues that there is no clear signage to denote a change to this ‘contract’ from 2 hours free parking with the option to enter the licence plate number of the car into a payment machine to pay for additional time parked and that current signage detailing 3 hours free parking (please see attached image provided by Euro Car Parks) appears almost identical to signage used in April 2019 presumably to match their company branding, which the appellant states is misleading. The appellant argues it is therefore possible to park at the Peel Centre, overstay the free parking limit but be unaware they are not able to pay for additional parking until approaching a pay machine that is no longer there (please see attached picture of the area where the pay machine used to be which has no details of why they have been removed nor any help or advice if a driver has unintentionally over stayed the new restrictions). This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice section 18.10 which states:
18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.
In addition, the appellant argues that at the time, despite having a ‘parking office’ at the other end of the car park, it is possible that the driver may not have been able to speak with a parking officer as it is not manned 24hours a day. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally.
Furthermore, note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
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:
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. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed.
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:
(above image taken from:
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
(image taken from: )
''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:
(image taken from ])
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.
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.
The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
Euro Car Parks Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
There is no information that indicates that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence used in the signage that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
• Error on Appeal response from Euro Car Parks
On the Appeal response related to xxxxxxx (please see attached) there is an error. The appeal response letter states ‘Date of Issue:YY /2019’ however the registered note to keeper states ‘Date of issue as XX/2019’ bringing into question the validity of the parking charge.0 -
Euro Car Parks normally comply with the POFA, as we say all the time on ECP threads, so unless you have a late NTK then your point about the individual bot being shown to be the driver, is not worth including.
I didn't see anything about 'no landowner authority'?
I really like your point about the change of free hours and lack of added signs. Are you sending POPLA some photo proof from Google Streetview to show it changed?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Euro Car Parks normally comply with the POFA, as we say all the time on ECP threads, so unless you have a late NTK then your point about the individual bot being shown to be the driver, is not worth including.
I didn't see anything about 'no landowner authority'?
I really like your point about the change of free hours and lack of added signs. Are you sending POPLA some photo proof from Google Streetview to show it changed?
Thank you Coupon-mad, apologies I no understand the POFA? Is this the signage part you mean? .
Sorry also what do you mean 'I didn't see anything about 'no landowner authority'?' ?
I will be adding an image from google streetview of the old signage and i have photo of the current signage. Thank you for your help.0 -
You seem to be using post #3 of the NEWBIES thread as your guide for writing your PoPLA appeal.blindsided wrote: »Sorry also what do you mean 'I didn't see anything about 'no landowner authority'?' ?
Read that post again, looking for the words Landowner Authority in bold.0 -
Hi i am in the middle of appealing a PCN, exactly the same circumstances as you. I'm keen to see how yours is progressing?
Eurocar parks have just rejected my appeal, as expected, im now about to start my POLA appeal.
its a joke what they have done down at the Peel center without even informing people its changed!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards