POPLA APPEAL Mulberry Walk, Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield

Stefano123

I've been doing a lot research to get my POPLA Appeal looking OK and I've found the advice on here amazing so thanks. I'm posting for two reasons. A. To get some feedback on it before I submit it and B. to leave it as a template for anyone else who wants to appeal against the scammers operating at the above location. Hope you can help and hope that I can help others.

I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered:

1. No right to charge for ‘overstaying’

2. No valid contract with landowner

 

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

5. 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

 

6. Insufficient Grace Period and/ insufficient information provided for either Britannia Parking or Car Users to understand when the parking event/ grace period actually begins or ends

1. No right to charge for ‘overstaying’

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

"I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.")

 

BPA CoP:

7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

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

I put Britannia Parking to strict proof of both compliance with all of the above requirements and of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee who has no more title than the operator). They do not own the land and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Britannia Parking is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts (which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP). I suggest that Britannia Parking are not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free to enter car park and that issuing PCNs by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

I contend that the contract (if this operator produces one) does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance, particularly points 7.3 b) & d).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers in a petrol station.

I require Britannia Parking to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority. Furthermore, multiple non-compliance with BPA CoP makes Britannia Parking authority with the landowner null and void under BPA CoP 7.1

 

2. No valid contract with landowner

 

I requested this information given it is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.

In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

Stefano123

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication

“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

 

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. Moreover, without a barrier system in place and no information about precisely where Britannia Parking believe a parking event starts and finishes, they clearly are adopting an arbitrary point on the car park to take pictures of users but are not clearly stating to users the standards against which they being held.

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:

http://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:

http://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:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

http://www.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.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''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:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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.

 

See images as attached as clear evidence of the failure to comply with the above

Photo 1 – Entrance (No clear signage)

Photo 2 – Entrance (No clear signage)

 

Photo 3 – Car parking without any clear signage

Photo 4 and 5 – Car Park (no clear signage)

Stefano123

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and cannot include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

In ParkingEye v Smith at Manchester County Court in 2011, claim number 1XJ81016, the original claim of £240 was deemed an unrecoverable penalty, unrelated to damages incurred and the only sum that could be recovered was deemed to be £15 (the amount of the pay and display fee for more than one visit). The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable.

As the PCN sum is massively inflated, I require MPS to submit a breakdown of how this sum was calculated prior to the parking event, as being capable of directly flowing from a minor alleged breach.

The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park had a large number of available parking spaces and at the time of the alleged parking and that the premise’s was not even open for business.

The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks.

Given that MPS charge the same lump sum to any alleged contravention whether the premises is open or not, it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.

The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. MPS cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):

The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.''

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Supreme Court by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

5. 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

 

The driver has still yet to be identified and I put Britannia Parking to strict proof that the driver is indeed the hirer given they have provided no evidence to date that this is indeed the case.  Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper or hirer, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper or hirer liability' does not exist.

The registered keeper has absolved themselves of any responsibility for the parking charge in question by naming the hirer and supplying the hirer’s address. However, the creditor has not satisfied the conditions to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer:

Paragraph 14 (a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper.

The documents required are defined here:

Paragraph 13 (2)(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

This requirement is also clearly stated in the BPA Code of Practice (BPA CoP) section 21.19: Your Notice to Hirer must satisfy the detailed requirements of Paragraph 14, including:
the contents you need to include in the Notice to Hirer -paragraph 14(5) the documents you must send with it paragraphs 13(2) & 14(2)

No such documents were supplied with the Notice to Hirer.

According to POFA, the Notice to Hirer must also:

Paragraph 14 (5) (a) inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;

(c) warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

The ‘notice to hirer’ such fails to quote Paragraph 14 (5) (a).

 

6. Insufficient Grace Period and/ insufficient information provided for either Britannia Parking or Car Users to understand when the parking event/ grace period begins or ends

This matter appears to flow from an allegation of an 'overstay' of 26 minutes, despite the fact this is not an ‘overstay’ at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided from Britannia Parking in the ‘Notice to Hirer’. Photographs taken only demonstrate the time of entry into and exit from an undefined area of the car park but do not establish the time at which any parking event might have taken place or at which it expired. Moreover, the lack of a barrier system or clear signage (see photo 1 and 2) or ANY detail establishing precisely at what material point on entry Britannia Parking begin measuring time on site (importantly not any ‘parking event’) means the PCN issued is expecting any user of the car park to guess the moment that Britannia Parking start the session and end. If a charge of such magnitude is to be issued then it must comply with BPA Code of Conduct and establish a clear contract with the user, stating categorically the terms of when and where they are claiming a ‘parking event’ took place.

The BPA Code of Practice [January 2020] (13.3) states: ‘Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.’

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘“There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.”

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. 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,” he explains.

“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.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving into the car park at 15:21 on 08/09/2020 and driving out at 18:47 on the same date.

In their appeal rejection letter, Britannia Parking response that “Therefore we consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw your attention to the terms and condition of the parking contract that is on offer. By leaving your vehicle in the car park you have broken the terms and conditions and therefore we believe the Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued”. The implication here is that I am (a) the driver (which they have not proved); (b) that the car parked immediately after it was observed at an unknown position on the car park and finished a parking session immediately before it was then observed again; (c) I knowingly entered into a contract; (d) I was fully aware at what time and point the cameras began observing my vehicle. None of these things have any evidence to prove that this is the case.

 

The appeal rejection letter quotes the BPA stating that “We give motorist a 10 minute grace period at the end of parking event to leave the car park before a Parking Charge Notice is issued, which is within the BPA guidelines.” Whereas it actually states in 13.3 “Grace Period of at least 10 minutes” thus the very bare minimum amount, which does not allow for the material reality of the individual car park in question. From the very little information that they provide in evidence it seems they are suggesting a grace period begins as soon as their camera observes a car at an arbitrary point on the car park, which (a) is not a grace period as set out by the BPA Code if Practice; and (b) is vital information that is withheld from the user, which would otherwise enable a contract to be made between any user and the Britannia Parking.

 

Simply put, the most important aspect of the contract (i.e. what time Britannia Parking are using to define when a ‘parking event’ has started/ ended) is knowledge completely and utterly withheld from any user until they are given a PCN. Measuring time spent on site (not to mention giving the user no way of knowing when their parking event is starting or ending) is a clear breach in withholding the very information needed to enable the user to be compliant with what are already vague, unclear signs and terms on them. Given there is absolutely NO system NOR information given to allow the user to be compliant, I put Britannia parking to strict proof to the contrary. How on earth any user be compliant to use a car park for a finite amount of time when only Britannia Parking know when they consider that time to start or end? Not to mention the fact they are erroneously conflating ‘time on site’ with a car actually being stationary and parked. The user is simply not given the information they need to enter into a binding and enforceable contract.

The logistics of the car park also makes the assumption that a car can park within seconds of being observed is also problematic given the very narrow lanes, one-way system in operation and how busy (and full) the carpark is on a busy day. It is impossible to pass by another car if a car is stationary or parking meaning the car park is constantly at risk of being at a standstill while cars are manoeuvring in and out of spaces. The carpark is very small and thus all spaces are often occupied. Having recently been to the carpark and timed the durations on I can say from entering the carpark to finding a parking spot took approximately 9 minutes. At the top of the car park (photos 4 and 5) there are no visible signage. Likewise leaving the car park is equally arduous and again on a recent return visit took 12 minutes to leave because an Amazon delivery driver blocked the one-way system. The total time clearly takes far beyond the ‘10 minute grace period’.

 

 

This concludes my appeal. 

Le_Kirk

GPEOL is old!  Did you see this when you searched the NEWBIE sticky third post?

I have only shown a few links as examples of POPLA appeals because they change and evolve. Searching will find the most recent similar example; do not use one older than 2017. Do not look at old ones about 'no GPEOL' or no loss because that's not going to win.

Coupon-mad

Please can you remove this 'template' before someone copies it and loses?  GPEOL went out with the Ark!

Post #3 of the NEWBIES thread already gives everyone their POPLA template points and 'no loss' is obviously not one of them.

Stefano123

Coupon-mad said:

Please can you remove this 'template' before someone copies it and loses?  GPEOL went out with the Ark!

Post #3 of the NEWBIES thread already gives everyone their POPLA template points and 'no loss' is obviously not one of them.

Sorry, I don't live on this site like some people. 

Stefano123

Le_Kirk said:

GPEOL is old!  Did you see this when you searched the NEWBIE sticky third post?

I have only shown a few links as examples of POPLA appeals because they change and evolve. Searching will find the most recent similar example; do not use one older than 2017. Do not look at old ones about 'no GPEOL' or no loss because that's not going to win.

Thanks for your constructive comment. I shall remove. With the sheer amount of information its sometimes hard to distinguish and keep up to date. But I appreciate your advice, so thanks.

Redx

Stefano123 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Please can you remove this 'template' before someone copies it and loses?  GPEOL went out with the Ark!

Post #3 of the NEWBIES thread already gives everyone their POPLA template points and 'no loss' is obviously not one of them.

Sorry, I don't live on this site like some people. 

But if you did your research on more recent threads of no more than 2 years old then maybe you would not be likely to lose at popla !!

You wouldn't read a 5 year old t v magazine to find out what is on t v tonight , even if you hadn't watched TV for a while or had no money for a new t v magazine either

Read recent Popla appeals , plus read the third post of the newbies FAQ sticky thread too

If nobody lived in this forum you would get any answers or advice , but please feel free to pay a lawyer for assistance if you do not like the regulars who live here advising you of your errors in using ancient advice , it is after all , your money at stake , not ours !!

There are only volunteers giving up their free time to help others , no paid staff on here , you should try it before complaining !!

Umkomaas

The Planning Permission appeal point is not going to attract the slightest interest from POPLA - we've seen it raised endlessly and it has never been commented on by POPLA, it's never won an appeal for anyone. 

In any case, do you have proof that there is no Planning Permission?  That isn't apparent (to me at least) in your statement. 

Stefano123

Umkomaas said:

The Planning Permission appeal point is not going to attract the slightest interest from POPLA - we've seen it raised endlessly and it has never been commented on by POPLA, it's never won an appeal for anyone. 

In any case, do you have proof that there is no Planning Permission?  That isn't apparent (to me at least) in your statement. 

I don't have this, no. I will remove this. Thanks for the constructive comment and tone. 

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the

scammer extra costs, and in some cases, cancellation. 

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 later this year,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, 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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.