Do I have a case or should I just pay?

Coupon-mad

Add another two appeal points for POPLA:

- put them to strict proof that the car had not been granted an extra hour as per the signage terms I (yes I know, don't tell me, I don't need to read again where the occupants of the car were!!). The point is this is their case to prove on evidence, and they might slip up or give up if you lay out lots of banana skins.

- put them to strict proof as to which entrance the car used, given there are several areas, internal roadways and roundabouts within the site, not all of which are clearly signed. And that these internal roadways and roundabouts and give way areas explain why on a busy days, a car driver takes some 8 minutes to park and ten mins to leave this large retail park.

And use this Google image to show that sometime in 2019 they seem to have changed what was a Euro Car Parks PDT machine car park with completely different rules, so given it was under their control all along, the failure to put up very clear new signs all around the large site is their failure entirely:

https://goo.gl/maps/zFfBhhP3jpM7hQE29

So I think grace period, like landowner authority, is a no-go.

It's really not. Try it! But you do have to go to town explaining that 8 mins on arrival (at the remote entrance) before actually getting anywhere near any parking bays and then explaining the perfectly reasonable 10 mins grace after parking time.

Was the car there before 22.59 and left before that time?

Reasonable_Person

Keith thank you for reposting those links. You are right about the Important Notice. There is another sign at the entrance at ground level with the same Important Notice on it and it actually not that easy to read even close up:

i.postimg.cc/QxKzWC3k/20191025-181133.jpg

My thumb is not in the foreground there, it is pressed against the sign. That though is not where the charge is displayed (not at all at the entrance).

The value of the charge is not displayed at the entrance at all. It is on those signs on the interior, in the bit below the 'Welcome to the Peel Centre Customers Only' blue writing. You can just make it out in the photo. It is clearer in real life, but the distortion is because it was darker in real life than the photo appears. There is certainly no attempt to direct attention to the charge though.

Coupon-mad well I may as well add that into the appeal. Furthermore they should probably specify that the Cinema they refer to is the one next to the car park and not the one 5 mins walk away (how Bracknell sustains two cinemas so close to each other I'm not sure).

I will use the fact the rules changed - it is the very reason the driver was caught. It was June or before, since Stree View photos were from then. But the driver went there in April had had no issue even though they saw a movie 3 hours long.

Yes the car was there before 22.59. Arrival was shortly before 19.30. It was busy at arrival but not when the driver left.

But my real question here is: Based on the photo of the sign, is the text with the value of the charge too small in your views? It is certainly smaller than the one in the Beavis Case case linked in the Newbies thread. But it is not microscopic.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

The value of the charge is not displayed at the entrance at all.

It does not have to be; look at the CoP rules about entrance signs.

But my real question here is: Based on the photo of the sign, is the text with the value of the charge too small in your views? It is certainly smaller than the one in the Beavis Case case linked in the Newbies thread. But it is not microscopic.

It's small but also the signs are complicated by the bit I advised you put them to strict proof about!

Reasonable_Person

I see you are right. In fact even in the example entrance sign they show the charge is not there.



Looking at the CoP I also see 18.10 says


"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/ temporary 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."


No such signage was there. But perhaps if you make changes in ~May, do you not need to still have signs up in October? There are none visible in the street view images from June either, but I'm not sure that helps me. Do you know of any cases where such a period of change has been ruled upon?

Umkomaas

No such signage was there. But perhaps if you make changes in ~May, do you not need to still have signs up in October? There are none visible in the street view images from June either, but I'm not sure that helps me. Do you know of any cases where such a period of change has been ruled upon?

There’s no prescribed time limits, but May to October, in my opinion, would be too far apart to have any chance of helping you

I know of no cases (from memory) where (lack of) temporary signage to inform changes has helped anyone. This isn’t going to be your showstopper.

The_Deep

The last time I used this car park ISTR that it was pay on exit, when did it change?

Coupon-mad

You do not know that changes were made in May, stop ruining your own case!

Reasonable_Person

Thank you Umkomaas. I suspected as much.


I'm not trying to ruin my case, just realistically appraise it. ECP knows when they changed the rules it and can prove it.


@ The Deep, I know the changes were made June or earlier because you can see the current rules are displayed in Google Streetview, the photos of which were taken in June. I suspect it was after April because the driver went there then and had no issues. Hence why I suspect around May, give or take. I tried to use Wayback Machine on the Peel Centre website to get a more precise date but the site is not archived there, so no dice.


Though I can pile on all the standard complaints here it seems to me my only real chance, assuming ECP does not 'slip on a banana skin' as you put it, is that the signs were not clear enough in general, but it seems to me that is pretty touch and go. They do not draw attention to the charge but it is readable (as can be seen from the photo above).

Coupon-mad

I'm not trying to ruin my case, just realistically appraise it. ECP knows when they changed the rules it and can prove it.

Never seen a PPC do that. I highly doubt they have the date and new photos taken when it all changed.

We do know what we are doing, it's from experience. At POPLA, put banana skins out and make it long. You only need to win on one point and with POPLA, you lose no brownie points for bullets that miss.

Please don't ignore this advice.

KeithP

Reasonable_Person wrote: »

Though I can pile on all the standard complaints here it seems to me my only real chance, assuming ECP does not 'slip on a banana skin' as you put it, is that the signs were not clear enough in general, but it seems to me that is pretty touch and go. They do not draw attention to the charge but it is readable (as can be seen from the photo above).

I beg to differ.

It took me some time to find mention of the £100 parking charge in that first image you showed us.

Here it is again with the £100 highlighted (in blue):

Compare that with the Beavis sign:

Clearly that '£100 Parking Charge' wording is very far from prominent on ECP's sign.

The Supreme Court told us that that wording must be prominent.