ParkingEye POPLA - 20 minute stay

Lekan21

Hi all,

Helping a friend who who got an Invoice from ParkingEye and is allergic to technology

Overstayed in a free 20 min car park by 13 minutes (33 minutes total stay) and then got a NTK through the door from ParkingEye. Unfortunately it wasn't a golden ticket.

Appealed using the template on the Sticky post but that was rejected and now has a POPLA code. At no point have we identified the driver.

i have built a response using the below reasons for the Appeal. and will PDF it as the comment box only allows 2000 characters/words. I think the grace period is enough but I heard chucking everything at them has a better success rate.

1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

5) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

6)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

Any help/advice would be much appreciated as I am not sure If I have done this correctly, link to document is below

Template (change hxxp to http) - hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ri1wsIeoVsmvsn-xy_W2Q_p_9K5A_snzrbxWGUaYVP8/edit?usp=sharing

Umkomaas

Template (change hxxp to http) - hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ri1wsIeoVsmvsn-xy_W2Q_p_9K5A_snzrbxWGUaYVP8/edit?usp=sharing

Please ... just copy and paste the POPLA appeal into the thread. It makes it so much easier to review (we're doing tens of POPLA appeals, court defences and Witness Statements every day of the week).

C&P it via Notepad, not directly via Word, otherwise you're risking an IP block by MSE.

Lekan21

Apologies Umkomaas, appeal part 1 below

Appeal re POPLA Code: XXXXXX v ParkingEye

Vehicle Registration:XXXXXX
POPLA ref: XXXXXX
ParkingEye Ref: XXXXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated [Insert Date] acting as a notice
to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – ParkingEye – was
submitted and acknowledged on [Insert Date] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated
[Insert Date]. 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) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

5) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

6)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




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. It is 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’sCode of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking
Association (BPA):

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that 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.”

Finally, some 4 years ago, 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 by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that 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.”

(Source: [Link])


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 seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken 3 into account – certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.


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 after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide whether or not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.


It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which ParkingEye claim was 33 minutes) is not an unreasonable grace period given:


1. Grace period before parking (as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2), reasonably suggested to be the same 10 minute grace period as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4))

2. 20 Minutes Stay is allowed at the site

3. Grace period after parking (10 minutes grace period as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4))

4. The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (noncompliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract

5. The lengthiness of ParkingEye’s signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “terms & conditions” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny black text at the bottom of the sign.


Factors 4 and 5 discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions
• Decipher the confusing information being presented
• Decide whether or not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
• Stay for 20 Minutes
• Return to the car and safely leave the car park.



2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

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, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all 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:

[Link]

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]

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

[Link]

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

[Link]

''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]

''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]

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.



3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have 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

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]PE signs leave much to be desired. 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]

here is one that they lost recently

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5957364/first-parking-eye-appeal-unsuccessful[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, 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]l[/FONT]






[/FONT]

Lekan21

Appeal part 2

4. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. The Notice to Keeper states:

“Time In Car Park 0 hours 33 minutes”
“Arrival Time: [Date] 17:43:22”
“Departure Time [Date] 18:16:31”

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By ParkingEye’s own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states; “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. 25 I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that ParkingEye produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.



5. 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.
ParkingEye’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 indicates that these camera images would be used in order to
issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence
above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.



6) 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.''

Le_Kirk

Don't put links in POPLA appeals. Assessors will not chase them all over the Internet, just embed what you wan them to see/read. Don't give them excuses not to read you full appeal.

Umkomaas

While you've done a good job in laying out the ground rules for Grace Periods, you really must describe how each period has been consumed, the sum of the time totals being equivalent (at least) to the 13 minutes over and above the 20 minutes free parking. POPLA assessors need to be led by the hand on this.

Appeal point 4. Waste of time. No appeal has ever been won on that point.

Appeal point 5. Ditto

Appeal point 6.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon .......

....... yet in your opening post you say this ......

Unfortunately it wasn't a golden ticket.

So I'm not sure where you're going with that argument?

Lekan21

HI Umkomaas.

Thanks for your advice, I have made the below amendments.

Point 4 and 5 have now been removed

Point 6. - would removing "In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon" make the point valid? I am trying to say as they don't know who the driver was, they cant assume its the keeper?


Point 3 modified to:

It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which ParkingEye claim was 33 minutes) is not an unreasonable grace period given:


1. Grace period before parking (as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2), reasonably suggested to be the same 10 minute grace period as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4)) - 8 Minutes consumed -

2. 20 Minutes Stay is allowed at the site - 20 minutes consumed -

3. Grace period after parking (10 minutes grace period as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4)) - 5 minutes consumed -

4. The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (noncompliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract

5. The lengthiness of ParkingEye’s signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “terms & conditions” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny black text at the bottom of the sign.

Lekan21

Hi Umkomaas,

I think I may have misunderstood point 6 as they dis send a proper NTK... shall i remove it and just keep 1,2 and 3?

Thanks

MistyZ

I'm sure Umkomaas will respond himself, but I think he meant that you should describe how the time was spent. For example, it always takes time to find a parking space anyway so if the car park was particularly busy that would easily account for the 8 minutes. Check out how other POPLA appeals on here handle this.

Umkomaas

Sorry, missed this yesterday afternoon, and given the volume of traffic on here, threads disappear down the forum rapidly.

Point 6. - would removing "In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon" make the point valid? I am trying to say as they don't know who the driver was, they cant assume its the keeper?

If the NtK fully meets PoFA requirements, they don't need to bother about who the driver was, they have the keeper teed up. Unless it's glaringly obvious (date of NtK/no PoFA warning on age 2 of NtK - a 'Golden Ticket') then it's safe to assume that PE can invoke keeper liability.

Grace Periods (GP)

I've used the word 'consumed' simply as shorthand for the thread, don't use the word in your POPLA appeal.

What I mean is for GP1 you show the time of entry to the car park (as shown on the ANPR photo on the NtK), then describe what happened in order to park the car (circling round, finding spaces large enough for the vehicle, very busy on the day, finally found a suitable space, manoeuvred the car into place, walked to the nearest sign, read the immense details shown on the PE sign - a requirement in any car park these days, decided to stay, at which point the period of parking contractually commenced). You then state the time all that took.

If you say it took (say) 8 minutes, then what you had to do to exit the car park (which, like above, you need to describe) would need to amount to (at least) 5 minutes. So the two added together come to the 13 minutes that your vehicle was on the car park.