Britannia Parking Postal PCN. 2nd Stage Appeal

OldCodger.

Ok, thinking of going with the following amended appeal. Any assistance would be appreciated especially in relation to the final point (6).

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 31st October 2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Britannia Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 4th November 2019 and rejected by an email dated 7th November 2019. I contend that I, as the registered keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
2. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear of legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
3. No evidence of Period Parked – NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.
4. Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
6. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear that a contract was never entered in to), It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
“The BPA’s guidance specifically says there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.” No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which Britannia Parking claims was 14 minutes and 2 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

a) The site is not lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its’ primary source of lighting.
b) Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at the time of the visit – 18:03:48 to 18:17:50. A floodlight which is mounted on a pole above the car park sign and payment machine is not working. (See Figure 4).
c) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract. Signs are not lit and too high to enable a vehicles headlight to reflect on the sign.
d) The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.2 and 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
e) The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
f) The lengthiness of Britannia Parking’s’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text in particular relation to (“the Parking Contract”) included in small print making it confusing and difficult to read, further hindered by faulty and insufficient lighting.
g) Parking bays in this particular venue are not typical of other better maintained Britannia Parking venues (See Riverside Parking – Victoria Road, Chelmsford) where bays are marked by white painted lines and clearly visible during daylight and in darkness). The bays at the venue in question are partly marked with bricks of a similar colour to the car park surface and set into rough ground with weeds potholes and puddles making them impossible to see at night. The result requires extra time for the motorist to determine whether the vehicle is parked in a valid space. (Picture to be added).

All factors described above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
1) Locate a sign indicating entrance/exit.
2) Locate a valid car parking space.
3) Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
4) Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.
5) Decipher the confusing information presented.
6) Decide whether it is safe to leave the car owing to the poorly maintained and lack of lightning.
7) Decide not to park and therefore not entering into a contract.
8) Return to the car and safely leave the car park.

In support of the above factors and recognition by Britannia Parking in their appeal outcome reply that there are separate grace periods, plural, (the appeal outcome from Britannia Parking refers to “Section 13 - Grace periods”), it cannot be argued there is only one grace period of 10 minutes.

Under the circumstances described above on the date of the alleged contravention, it is reasonable to suggest that a period of at least 10 minutes upon arrival to the location is appropriate, followed by a further period of at least 10 minutes to safely leave the car park having decided not to enter a contract with the Operator.

Finally, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and Stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read “a minimum of eleven minutes.”

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that the guidelines state the grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: ‘a minimum of ten minutes’ in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum – a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that the alleged contravention in this case is perfectly reasonable, especially when other factors such as failure of lighting are taken into account. As stated earlier in this section, Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park.

2. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear of legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:
“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”
Figure 1: Shows the view at the entrance/exit. There is no marking on the road suggesting the entrance to the venue, nor is there any sign viewable from the road or direction of traffic that indicates you are entering a private controlled area, especially at night time.
(Figure 1)

Figure 2: Shows the view at the entrance/exit during darkness around the time and with conditions similar to those of the case under decision. (Figure 2)


It is straightforward to conclude from figure 1 and 2 that:
• There is no clear sign indicating the entrance/exit of the venue
• There is no lighting on the signage
Both items above indicate the contravention of BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) which states “you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
There wasn’t any contract or agreement on the parking charge at all. It is declared that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion to the times recorded by the ANPR device. The driver here was certainly not ‘bound to’ have seen the terms nor could be considered to have ‘agreed’ to a parking contract.
Signs are positioned at a height that upon entering the car park in darkness cannot be seen with a cars headlights and a lower level sign stating “camera controlled – Pay On Arrival” is turned away from the direction of oncoming vehicles entering the car park (see figure 4). Both signs on the same pole are facing different angles, which doesn’t make any logical sense. In complete darkness, it would be easy to assume that this isn’t a private car park and could even appear to be derelict land. The sign just passed the entrance is not prominent or lit, making it very difficult to determine that this is private land. (See figure 3 which shows the view at the entrance/exit during darkness around the time and with conditions similar to those of the case under decision).
(Figure 3) (Figure 4)

A floodlight which is positioned above the sign by the payment machine is not working as can be seen in figure 5 below. (Figure 5 image taken with a flash / Figure 6 without a flash). Clearly a direct failure to comply with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”
(Figure 5) (Figure 6)

The payment machine is placed on exit (contrary to the request on the sign stating ‘Pay on Arrival’) again not lit and not obvious that payment can be taken here. There is one other payment machine tucked away in the far corner of the car park under a large tree, which isn’t aided by any artificial light and is approximately 100 yards from the car park entrance, very difficult to locate in complete darkness. (See Figure 7 – payment machine is located in top left corner and please bear in mind this was taken during daylight).
(Figure 7)
Figure 8. Entrance to car park at night

The image in figure 8 shows the view of the car park sign in the same lighting conditions as the date/time for which the PCN has been issued. It is unremarkable, small, not lit and not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible being too dark to read. Notice the sign is high up on the pole, which poses additional difficulty for anyone to read.
The BPA Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance signs and states:

1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.

In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead (it is not even visible in darkness), nor is it readable and understandable at all times. It is not directly lit nor does it benefit from lighting used for the parking area. It may possibly be made of reflective material but this is irrelevant in this case as the positioning of the entrance sign is such that vehicle headlights will never shine on it sufficiently so as to illuminate it. Furthermore it is not even clear that this is an entrance. There are no basic signs stating where to enter/exit.





Figure 8.


It is important at this point to note that vehicles approaching/entering the car park do so from a 30mph street and when discussing entrance signs, the BPA CoP suggests that a typical approach speed of 15 mph to enter a car park by immediately turning off a 30mph road. (In this particular case there are no signs or road markings at the location to determine where the entry/exit should be).

The small print section on some of the signs (See figure 7) that is of particular important is in tiny text that is impossible to read without a step ladder, particularly in the dark when you would need a torch.

It cannot be reasonably assumed (particularly given this case took place after sunset in a car park without its own functioning lighting or without signage being adequately lit) that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park, nor parked near one.


3. 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:
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Britannia Parking are utilising cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay. It is not in the gift of Britannia Parking to substitute “Entry/Exit” or “Length of Stay” in place of the PoFA requirement – “period of parking” – and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Britannia Parking are not able to definitively state the period of parking.


4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

The PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle, however they do not clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). The second image showing the rear of the vehicle is heavily blurred and the vehicle registration is not identifiable and has been inserted underneath (but not part of) the images. Evidence to indisputably relate these images to the location stated should be provided.

I require the Operator to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location rather than just passing through.

A previous news article (27 April 2018) by the BBC XXXX and the RAC 18th March 2019 XXXX shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximising the charge/penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivised not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee or extortionate charge. Based on the fact above, I require Britannia Parking to produce strong evidence, audited by a qualified third party, to prove that its’ process is not biased to suit it’s financial objective.


5. 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 - 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.

6. 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 21.1 ‘General Principles’ and the Consumer Protection from unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The sign draws immediate attention to the various logos or affiliations across the bottom of the sign with one in particular which states “the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras in this car park are used for the prevention and/or detection of crime and the Data collected may be shared with third parties for these purposes.”

This particular logo is contradictory to what is stated in the lengthy small text higher up on the sign, which cannot be easily read “By entering this private car park you consent for the purpose of parking control and enforcement of the Parking Contract to; the capturing of the vehicle registration by cameras and to processing of the data, together with any data provided by the payment of permit systems, to check the compliance with the parking contract, and to the processing of the data to request registered keeper details from the DVLA.

It’s clear that the logo is misleading customers into thinking that the ANPR cameras are used solely for the prevention and detection of crime rather than their primary purpose of enforcing parking contracts. There is no requirement in the BPA Code of Practice for operators to associate ANPR devices with the detection and prevention of crime.

END.

The_Deep

Parking Eye are another PPC with poor signage. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Many judges might find them insufficiently clear to form a contract, read this;[/FONT]

h[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ttps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5957364/first-parking-eye-appeal-unsuccessful[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

OldCodger.

Appeal now submitted to POPLA....

OldCodger.

Since noticed that their atrocious car park does not even appear on the Britannia website. Seems unusual to me....

OldCodger.

POPLA have confirmed my appeal was successful and has been withdrawn by the operator.

Withdrawal reasons: good will.

I hope the scammers are shut down soon.

Le_Kirk

OldCodger. wrote: »

Withdrawal reasons: good will.

Translation: we were going to lose!

Ralph-y

"good will" :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:






you will be telling me its Christmas soon


:xmastree::xmassmile:xmassign::snow_laug:santa2:
sorry



Ralph:cool: