Upside down Fluttered ticket in private car park

user_1940

Reason for Issue:
“Parked within a P&D Car Park without without display a valid P&D ticket or valid permit”

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 29/10/2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – CUP Enforcement – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 01/11/2019 and rejected via an email dated 04/11/2019. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. No contravention took place
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the Terms and Conditions
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
6. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis

1. No Contravention took place
I note that the Contravention stated: “Parked within a P&D Car Park without display a valid P&D ticket or valid permit” lacks the word “clearly”. An alleged agreement was made based on the information on the signage “Unauthorised, incorrectly parked vehicles not displaying a valid permit, or vehicles parked in the wrong bays or in a restricted area, on double yellow lines or blocking or parked on access will receive a parking charge notices (PCN)”. Please note again the lack of the word “clearly”.

A valid ticket or permit - to which it is assumed that validity pertains to the fact that a ticket is purchased from the appropriate machine, is for the correct car park and has not expired (meaning for example an hour was paid for and the ticket would be valid within the time paid for - in this case from 13:28 and expiring at 14:28). The orientation of the ticket was not a condition specified or agreed to with the terms and conditions of the signage at the private car park. I appealed the charge for this alleged “breach of contract” with the evidence provided below – clearly showing that a valid ticket was in fact on display.

Figure 1.1
CUP Enforcement stated in their appeal rejection: “In order for the ticket to be valid, it must clearly be on display and presented in the correct manner”.
However the ticket was on display (as in evidence Figure 1.1) and the “correct manner” is not stipulated anywhere in our agreement or the Terms and Conditions proposed by the somewhat inadequate “signage”. I cannot find anywhere that the orientation of a ticket can render it void or invalid, and in fact there are cases that the ticket may be unfit for purpose due to the insufficient adhesive (which this ticket lacks entirely) as seen here: parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/gladstones-pick-link-parkings-pocket.html
What’s more, in this modern day and age with ticketless parking services such as Ringo, it is not unreasonable to assume that the enforcement agent would and should be able to determine the validity of the ticket from the serial number 00113411 (which is clearly visible and on display as proven in evidence Figure 1.1).
There are many other cases in which the claim has been dismissed in court in favour of a defendant who paid for their ticket, only to receive a pcn.

Figure 1.2
As you can clearly see in Figure 1.2, the serial numbers on their evidence matches the serial number on my appeal thus proving beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle had a valid P&D ticket on display at the time of the alleged contravention and hence – no Contravention of Terms and Conditions was met.
As £1.50 was made to purchase a valid parking ticket which was displayed (and is proven to be paid and displayed and valid at the time of the alleged Contravention), I deem that a £100 Charge to be deceitful, unfair and improper.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially 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. 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.''

Figure 2.1
3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the Terms and Conditions

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 £100, which is practically illegible in most photographs due to the similar font size and is obscured due to it’s positioning at the entrance - 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:

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.jpg

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:

www-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.''

''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.

















Figure 3.1 Signage at entrance to Seven Sisters Market Carpark
Figure 3.1 shows the entrance to the Seven Sisters car park. As you may be able to see, the signage is against the left side on the fence of the entrance which is basically invisible from the perspective of a driver driving into the car park. It is visible from the road before the turn into the car park for about one second. From the driver's seat in most modern non-convertible cars it is basically impossible to see when entering the car park.

Figure 3.2 Signage from parking spot. Note the lack of clearly marked bays.
Figure 3.2 shows near where the alleged contravention took place. Notice the lack of clearly marked bays. It’s unclear if the car was even parked in a controlled bay in the car park.


Figure 3.3 Signage at entrance to where the Pay and Display ticket dispenser is located.
Figure 3.3 shows the signage at the entrance to the market leading to the pay and display machine where the alleged contravention took place. Note that it is very difficult to read any information about the details of the “contract” a driver is getting into by parking there.

Figure 3.4 “Signage” at Pay and Display Machine
Figure 3.4 shows the pay and display machine. Notice the total lack of signage around the machine (apart from a piece of paper stuck to the wall).

Figure 3.5 Closeup of signage on pay and display machine. Note the illegible, partially obscured signage
Figure 3.5 shows a close up of the pay and display machine. Please note how the information about the Terms and Conditions is partially obscured by a half torn off sticker about clamping in the car park and is very difficult to read due to the sticky mess covering the Terms and Conditions.
The state of repair of the signage and the condition of the pay and display machine in the carpark is so bad it’s hard to believe CUP Enforcement are a legitimate Service Provider and member of the BPA and aren't just some scam trying to con people out of their money.

4. 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 a 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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



5. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking.'' Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
Cup Enforcement NtK simply claims the PCN was issued due to breach of terms and conditions.”
At no stage do Cup Enforcement explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012 (see Figure 2.1).
I require Cup Enforcement to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

user_1940

6. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
The operator will likely make much of the Beavis case, yet they should be aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different. Essentially, that case was about the abuse of a free, time-limited public car park where signage could be used to create a secondary contract arising from a relevant obligation and where there was a 'legitimate interest' flowing from the landowner, in charging more than could normally be pursued for trespass.
In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately and there has been no loss nor detriment caused to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that this 'fine' is a conscionable amount to be charged under these circumstances.
At the Supreme Court in Beavis, it was held at 14: ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty… ''
This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32 in the Beavis decision, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''
Therefore, any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair:
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted
- Schedule 2: 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair':
’’A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations…’’
''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''
This charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which does NOT supersede other defences. It turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification. This case is not comparable.

In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would agree to a term where parking in a place that they enjoy rights of way and easements and pay a significant rent for the privilege of peaceful enjoyment would also accept a further unknown/not agreed liability. I would suggest that a court would not accept this is reasonable and indeed my next appeal point shows that a Senior Circuit Judge in a 2016 appeal case supports my view.

user_1940

Redacted version here with images: docs.google.com/document/d/1k0c-rNZ0IpEpzD7TB1S0UVme7S8FUti3vlRngyHXNqg

user_1940

I think I have to submit this today.

Coupon-mad

Your POPLA code lasts till day 33. Slow down and let us look & comment!

Remove the awful intro with two split infinitives (search the forum, we hate that intro!).

Remove your pic of the NTK from your appeal. Don't show it, what if CUP forget to upload a copy? You'd have filled an evidence gap for them!

Point out that there is no compliant 'P' entrance sign (specifically quoting from the BPA CoP appendix about MANDATORY ENTRANCE SIGNS). I saw you mentioned the entrance but didn't see mention of the lack of 'P' sign, telling people that the site is 'managed' by a BPA member. It's mandatory.

Re this:

“Unauthorised, incorrectly parked vehicles not displaying a valid permit, or vehicles parked in the wrong bays or in a restricted area, on double yellow lines or blocking or parked on access will receive a parking charge notices (PCN)”

I agree that it doesn't set out how to display the ticket in terms of orientation or how/where to display it, so that's good.

I would add that in fact, the car was neither:

(a) ''an unauthorised, incorrectly parked vehicle not displaying a valid permit'', nor
(b) ''a vehicle parked in the wrong bays or in a restricted area, on double yellow lines or blocking or parked on access''

Therefore, by the drafting of the sign, an AUTHORISED and CORRECTLY parked vehicle displaying a PDT ticket (not a 'permit'), which properly describes your car, is not one that can be issued with a PCN anyway. The sign appears to only restrict 'permit' holders or badly parked cars.

user_1940

Thanks for the feedback. I've removed the NTK.
I looked up the P in the BPA code of practice: britishparking.co.uk/write/BPA_AOS_CODE_OF_PRACTICE_CURRENT.pdf on page 28. It is somewhat ambiguous but I think you are correct in that:

This blue rectangle with the ‘P’ symbol can be left out
if public parking is not invited and it is trespass you
are managing.

If you do not have the ‘P’ symbol, you may move the
AOS roundel to the bottom of the sign alongside the
operator’s name.

They have met the requirement with the AOS roundel (by moving it to the bottom of the sign) however I think they still fail on the first point as the car park invites public parking.

They might be able to claim that this isn't the entrance sign and they have approval not to have one but I may as well add it in case they don't have approval!

Regarding the permit clause on their signage - they could possible argue that the P&D ticket isn't a permit and thus the terms were contravened...but I imagine that would be a can of worms as that means they could slap a ticket on any car which paid and displayed (which I'm sure they'd love to do) but I think that would invalidate the BPA code of practice entirely.

What does it mean to be authorised anyway (in regards to their signage)?

Fruitcake

You haven't mentioned the comments by the judge in the link I gave you in post 3.
When a judge says something, the parking profession should take note.

I think you should make more of the fact that the ticket was correctly displayed to start with, and there is nothing in the signs that say a charge will be issued if their inadequately manufactured tickets turn over due to uncontrollable external influences such as heat, moisture, or someone bouncing up and down on the car to deliberately turn the ticket over. You haven't mentioned the frustration of contract caused by their inadequately manufactured tickets.

The first two of the cases mentioned here might be useful for you where you have mentioned the Beavis case in yours.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5779740/court-report-staines-ppcs-0-motorists-3

user_1940

I've said I don't remember if the ticket was placed correctly or if the wind blew it. I'm not so keen on the idea of perjury if it might come to that. I linked to the parking prankster case but I didn't explicitly put in the judges comments. I'll add them to make sure. I can add more about the fact the tickets aren't fit for purpose.

user_1940

Updated point 1 to include cases as judges comments

I note that the Contravention stated: “Parked within a P&D Car Park without without display a valid P&D ticket or valid permit” lacks the word “clearly”. An alleged agreement was made based on the information on the signage “Unauthorised, incorrectly parked vehicles not displaying a valid permit, or vehicles parked in the wrong bays or in a restricted area, on double yellow lines or blocking or parked on access will receive a parking charge notices (PCN)”. Please note the signage lacks the word “clearly” and refers only to a “permit” and not a “Pay and Display Ticket”.

Figure 1 - closeup of signage at entrance of car park
A valid ticket or permit - to which it is assumed that validity pertains to the fact that a ticket is purchased from the appropriate authority/machine, is for the correct car park and has not expired (meaning for example an hour was paid for and the ticket would be valid within the time paid for - in this case from 13:28 and expiring at 14:28). The orientation of the ticket was not a condition specified or agreed to with the terms and conditions of the signage at the private car park. I appealed the charge for this alleged “breach of contract” with the evidence provided below – clearly showing that a valid ticket was in fact on display.

Figure 1.1
CUP Enforcement stated in their appeal rejection: “In order for the ticket to be valid, it must clearly be on display and presented in the correct manner”.
However the ticket was on display (as in evidence Figure 1.1) and the “correct manner” is not stipulated anywhere in our agreement or the Terms and Conditions proposed by the somewhat inadequate “signage”. I cannot find anywhere that the orientation of a ticket can render it void or invalid, and in fact there are cases that the ticket may be unfit for purpose due to the insufficient adhesive (which this ticket lacks entirely) as seen here: https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/gladstones-pick-link-parkings-pocket.html
The judges comments: “The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these type of cases which Link Parking had brought.”
What’s more, in this modern day and age with ticketless parking services such as Ringo, it is not unreasonable to assume that the enforcement agent would and should be able to determine the validity of the ticket from the serial number 00113411 (which is clearly visible and on display as proven in evidence Figure 1.1 and matches my purchased ticket in Figure 1.2).
There are many similar cases in which the claim has been dismissed in court in favour of a defendant who paid for their ticket, only to receive a pcn and the Private Parking Company not cancel the Parking Charge Notice upon proof of purchase of the ticket (cases D3GF4P9D Private Parking Solutions London -v- Mrs A, before DJ Hammond and D3GF2P0D Private Parking Solutions London -v- Mr B, before DJ Hammond).

Figure 1.2

As you can clearly see in Figure 1.2, the serial numbers on their evidence matches the serial number on my appeal thus proving beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle had a valid P&D ticket on display at the time of the alleged contravention and hence – no Contravention of Terms and Conditions was met.
The car was neither:
(a) ''an unauthorised, incorrectly parked vehicle not displaying a valid permit'',
(b) ''a vehicle parked in the wrong bays or in a restricted area, on double yellow lines or blocking or parked on access''
Therefore, by the drafting of the sign, an AUTHORISED and CORRECTLY parked vehicle displaying a PDT ticket (not a 'permit'), which properly describes the car, is not one that can be issued with a PCN. The sign appears to only restrict 'permit' holders or badly parked cars.
As £1.50 was made to purchase a valid parking ticket which was displayed (and is proven to be paid and displayed and valid at the time of the alleged Contravention) and the car was correctly parked, I deem that a £100 Charge to be deceitful, unfair and improper.

user_1940

I also updated 3.1 and included a bit about the mandatory missing P

Figure 3.1 Signage at entrance to Seven Sisters Market Carpark from street

Figure 3.1 shows the entrance to the Seven Sisters car park. As you may be able to see, the signage is against the left side on the fence of the entrance which is basically invisible from the perspective of a driver driving into the car park. It is visible from the road before the turn into the car park for about one second. From the driver's seat in most modern non-convertible cars it is basically impossible to see when entering the car park.
As public parking is invited within this car park, the entrance sign is also missing the mandatory blue rectangle with the ‘P’ symbol.