P4Parking - residential car park - appeal rejected

untitled2020

Hello folks,

Sorry for posting about this topic. I`m sure you all are tired of this, but here is my story.

Recently moved to a new flat that comes with allocated parking. Got the parking permit from the concierge but forgot to stick it to the windshield. You all know what followed next.

I sent an appeal to P4Parking and it got rejected , of course. I may have said the words "i parked" in my appeal. Read on the forum that I shouldnt have done that. Too late.

I found this forum by looking into what POPLA is . In the rejection email P4Parking sent , they mentioned POPLA and gave me a refference number.

After reading some threads here I got really confused. Not sure how to approach my appeal with POPLA.

As a side note, my tenancy agreement does not state the exact parking spot I`m allowed to use.

This is what is says relating to parking

Car Parking Space
15.1. To allow private vehicle(s) only to be parked at the Property in the space, garage or driveway if applicable allocated to the Property.
15.2. To ensure that any garage, driveway, or parking space is kept free of oil and other fluids and to arrange for, carry out or compensate the Landlord for the removal and
cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle belonging to the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors;

15.3. To arrange for all vehicles belonging to the Tenant or any visitors to be removed from
the Property at the end of the Tenancy;
15.4. To ensure that no vehicles that are not in a road worthy condition are parked at the
Property and that all vehicles are fully taxed.

This is what the appeal email from P4Parking says :

xxxxxxxxx Popla Code Thank you for your correspondence received on xx/09/2020, which has been passed for
our attention and which we have read with interest. We have reviewed the case and considered the comments
that you have made.
Further to and in response to your appeal, P4Parking has been contracted by the landowners or agents thereof to
ensure that vehicles are only allowed to be parked on the land with authority. This authority is dependent upon the
rules as laid down by the landowners or bodies acting on behalf of such estate, land or development. P4Parking
has the authority to charge any vehicle that is parked contrary to these regulations.
It is the responsibility of the person parking to demonstrate the correct display of the relevant permit and or
adherence to the rules governing the parking of the vehicle(s) within the grounds. If in doubt, P4Parking operates
5 days a week Monday to Thursday from 9:00am till 5:00pm, Friday 9:00 till 12:00 a manned control-room whose
staff are willing and able to advice on the validity of your parking prior to any charge being issued. This contact
number is available on any P4Parking warning notice and is placed throughout the private grounds as well as
being on all permit documents issued by and on behalf of P4Parking. The area where your vehicle was charged
has a policy to which all attending vehicles must park within the pre-informed parking criteria. The contravention
you have been breached with specifically is for:
No Valid Parking Permit On Visible Display
Although I sympathise with your concerns, at the time of your vehicle contravention and subsequent issuance with
a Parking Charge Notice the vehicle was in breach of the above and therefore, correctly charged under the power
given to us by the landowner. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide
by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that he
or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.
With regards to your appeal of the parking charge issued and having inspected all data available, which includes
your letter and contents of appeal, photographs taken at the time of the charge issued by the warden and all
additional 3rd party information available to us, we must make the following points very clearly.
It is the duty of the driver to read the signage placed on the development. The signs on the development clearly
state "All vehicles parked within these private grounds and not displaying an authorized parking permit or parked
outside of this development's parking regulations will be charged via the issuance of a parking charge notice.
Enforcement may take place at any time."
Having read your statement, it is the motorist responsibility to ensure the permit is displayed when parking on the
development.
The patrol officer has carried out his duties correctly as instructed by the landowner. Motorists parking on private
land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions, therefore the patrol officer had reasonable cause to
issue a parking charge notice on your vehicle.
Therefore the parking charge notice was issued correctly according to the instructions set out by the landowners,
please see attached pictorial evidence below.
After careful consideration, we must advise you that your appeal for this PCN has been REJECTED.
We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly. We have now extended
the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount. Please
now make payment of £60 to reach us by xx/10/2020 or £100 to reach us by xx/10/2020. We must advise you
that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again. You have now reached the end of our
internal appeals procedure, you have the legal right to submit a second appeal to POPLA. P4Parking cannot deal
with any subsequent appeal relating to this parking charge notice.
Furthermore, it is our duty to inform you that if you should choose to submit to POPLA (Parking on Private Land
Appeals), you will lose all the opportunities to pay the discount rate. If you want to appeal, you must do so within
28 days of the date this notice of rejection has been sent.
If your appeal is refused then the full parking charge will be due as the time for any early payment discount
offered by the operator will have passed. Do not pay the charge if you are appealing. If your appeal is allowed you
have nothing to pay. If your appeal is refused, in order to avoid any further action by the operator, you should then
pay the full parking charge within 28 days.
The quickest and easiest way to submit your appeal to POPLA is online at www.popla.co.uk xxxxxxxxxxx POPLA
verification code
By law, we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsmanservices.org/) provides
an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal, however, we have not
chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal, then you
must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
Please note, POPLA only applies in England, Wales and Scotland and it does not extend to tickets issued in
Northern Ireland.
Payments can be made choosing one of the alternatives:
Online https://

Would highly appreciate if someone could tell me what to include in the POPLA appeal.

Thank you in advance!

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

Read the third post of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly how to create a winning PoPLA appeal.

Fruitcake

Identifying the driver in residential cases is usually a good thing, so no worries there.
What happened when you complained to the landowner or management agent?
As a driver and resident, you will be able to say in your PoPLA appeal that your lease/tenancy agreement has primacy of contract. Since your primary contract does not mention parking companaies, parking charges, permits, or paying a third party who is a stranger to your primary contract, the scammers have no rights to demand monies with menaces from you.
There is no reason for you to display a permit so you are quite within your rights to return it and demand you car is put on an exemption list.

Get pics of the site and signage, and read the third post of the NEWBIES where there are a number of other template appeal points for you to adapt for your PoPLA appeal.

Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Please also comment on the draft code of practice that is out for public consultation, but there are only three days left. Details to follow in a mo.

Fruitcake

The draft CoP that we need posters to comment on in order to get the scammers under some sort of control.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You need to register to comment and include an occupation even if you are retired.

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.htmlantsot

What does your lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention the need to display a permit? then it may take primacy over the self serving TnC of the scammer, and interfere with your lawful right to “quiet enjoyment” of your property, possible an offence under The Landlord and Tenants Acts.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Coupon-mad

untitled2020 said:

Hello folks,

Sorry for posting about this topic. I`m sure you all are tired of this, but here is my story.

Recently moved to a new flat that comes with allocated parking. Got the parking permit from the concierge but forgot to stick it to the windshield. You all know what followed next.

I sent an appeal to P4Parking and it got rejected , of course. I may have said the words "i parked" in my appeal. Read on the forum that I shouldnt have done that. Too late.

I found this forum by looking into what POPLA is . In the rejection email P4Parking sent , they mentioned POPLA and gave me a refference number.

After reading some threads here I got really confused. Not sure how to approach my appeal with POPLA.

As a side note, my tenancy agreement does not state the exact parking spot I`m allowed to use.

This is what is says relating to parking

Car Parking Space
15.1. To allow private vehicle(s) only to be parked at the Property in the space, garage or driveway if applicable allocated to the Property.
15.2. To ensure that any garage, driveway, or parking space is kept free of oil and other fluids and to arrange for, carry out or compensate the Landlord for the removal and
cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle belonging to the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors;

15.3. To arrange for all vehicles belonging to the Tenant or any visitors to be removed from
the Property at the end of the Tenancy;
15.4. To ensure that no vehicles that are not in a road worthy condition are parked at the
Property and that all vehicles are fully taxed.

This is what the appeal email from P4Parking says :

xxxxxxxxx Popla Code Thank you for your correspondence received on xx/09/2020, which has been passed for
our attention and which we have read with interest. We have reviewed the case and considered the comments
that you have made.
Further to and in response to your appeal, P4Parking has been contracted by the landowners or agents thereof to
ensure that vehicles are only allowed to be parked on the land with authority. This authority is dependent upon the
rules as laid down by the landowners or bodies acting on behalf of such estate, land or development. P4Parking
has the authority to charge any vehicle that is parked contrary to these regulations.
It is the responsibility of the person parking to demonstrate the correct display of the relevant permit and or
adherence to the rules governing the parking of the vehicle(s) within the grounds. If in doubt, P4Parking operates
5 days a week Monday to Thursday from 9:00am till 5:00pm, Friday 9:00 till 12:00 a manned control-room whose
staff are willing and able to advice on the validity of your parking prior to any charge being issued. This contact
number is available on any P4Parking warning notice and is placed throughout the private grounds as well as
being on all permit documents issued by and on behalf of P4Parking. The area where your vehicle was charged
has a policy to which all attending vehicles must park within the pre-informed parking criteria. The contravention
you have been breached with specifically is for:
No Valid Parking Permit On Visible Display
Although I sympathise with your concerns, at the time of your vehicle contravention and subsequent issuance with
a Parking Charge Notice the vehicle was in breach of the above and therefore, correctly charged under the power
given to us by the landowner. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide
by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that he
or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.
With regards to your appeal of the parking charge issued and having inspected all data available, which includes
your letter and contents of appeal, photographs taken at the time of the charge issued by the warden and all
additional 3rd party information available to us, we must make the following points very clearly.
It is the duty of the driver to read the signage placed on the development. The signs on the development clearly
state "All vehicles parked within these private grounds and not displaying an authorized parking permit or parked
outside of this development's parking regulations will be charged via the issuance of a parking charge notice.
Enforcement may take place at any time."
Having read your statement, it is the motorist responsibility to ensure the permit is displayed when parking on the
development.
The patrol officer has carried out his duties correctly as instructed by the landowner. Motorists parking on private
land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions, therefore the patrol officer had reasonable cause to
issue a parking charge notice on your vehicle.
Therefore the parking charge notice was issued correctly according to the instructions set out by the landowners,
please see attached pictorial evidence below.
After careful consideration, we must advise you that your appeal for this PCN has been REJECTED.
We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly. We have now extended
the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount. Please
now make payment of £60 to reach us by xx/10/2020 or £100 to reach us by xx/10/2020. We must advise you
that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again. You have now reached the end of our
internal appeals procedure, you have the legal right to submit a second appeal to POPLA. P4Parking cannot deal
with any subsequent appeal relating to this parking charge notice.
Furthermore, it is our duty to inform you that if you should choose to submit to POPLA (Parking on Private Land
Appeals), you will lose all the opportunities to pay the discount rate. If you want to appeal, you must do so within
28 days of the date this notice of rejection has been sent.
If your appeal is refused then the full parking charge will be due as the time for any early payment discount
offered by the operator will have passed. Do not pay the charge if you are appealing. If your appeal is allowed you
have nothing to pay. If your appeal is refused, in order to avoid any further action by the operator, you should then
pay the full parking charge within 28 days.
The quickest and easiest way to submit your appeal to POPLA is online at www.popla.co.uk xxxxxxxxxxx POPLA
verification code
By law, we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsmanservices.org/) provides
an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal, however, we have not
chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal, then you
must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
Please note, POPLA only applies in England, Wales and Scotland and it does not extend to tickets issued in
Northern Ireland.
Payments can be made choosing one of the alternatives:
Online https://

Would highly appreciate if someone could tell me what to include in the POPLA appeal.

Thank you in advance!

The stuff in post #3 of the NEWBIES trhead, plus your own photos and your own summary of the above, with a copy PDF too.

And:

And this weekend: An urgent task – deadline is MONDAY!

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out. 

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework intended to rein in the rogue parking firms. 

Does it go far enough?  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation (two separate consultation documents).

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

BSI PAS 232 – COMMENTING ON THE CODE OF PRACTICE AS DRAFTED :

1.    You will need to register then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  

 

2.    Register, log into the BSI page, and download & read the cover letter here:

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

 

3.    Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions... if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list. 

 

4.    Download the PAS itself and start commenting on what you wish to say something about.  Quick links to each section appear on the left of your page. 

 

You don’t have to comment on everything, e.g. you might want to skip the definitions and focus on later sections, and certainly look at the Annex tables at the end that show things like consideration & grace periods and exemptions.

 

5.    Submit comments when you are happy with them. Don’t just ‘SAVE’ and forget!

 

THAT IS HALF THE JOB DONE!

THE MHCLG CONSULTATION IS EASIER AS IT IS JUST A LIST OF QUESTIONS. 

 

6.    You can do it first if preferred or pushed for time:

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=EGg0v32c3kOociSi7zmVqAVPfAOtwRxLhHRwQ610oElUMzhQSVo0WUQ4SERVSEZaUU9DTUhFQ1VMUy4u

If your answers exceed 4000 characters (approx. 500 words to a single question or 16000 words (approx. 2500 words) for all the questions below, you can email your answers to parking@communities.gov.uk as long as you state who you are.

 

 

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU WILL SEE, FOR RESPONSES TO THE FRAMEWORK:

Q1 Do you agree or disagree that members of APAs should be required to use a single appeals service appointed by the Secretary of State?

Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree

 

Q1.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q2 Please provide any other feedback on the determination of appeals, including the funding model and features that an appeal service should offer e.g. telephone or in-person hearings, the ability to submit evidence online

(free text)

 

Q3 Please provide any comments you have on the proposal to enforce the Code by combining the ATA’s existing audit procedures with additional safeguards.

(free text)

 

Q4 Please outline any alternative means by which the Code could be monitored and enforced. You may wish to cite evidence from other regulatory frameworks which are relevant.

(free text)

 

Q5 Please provide any feedback you have on the proposed governance arrangements for monitoring the new Code of Practice

(free text)

 

Q6 Which parking charge system is most appropriate for private parking?

 a) the Three-tiered system

 b) Mirroring the Local Authority system

(free text)

 

 Q6.1 Please explain your answer. You may, for example, wish to make reference to other deterrent frameworks (for example, for railway tickets or traffic violations)

(free text)

 

 

Q7 What level of discount is appropriate:

40% as is currently offered in private parking and suggested in the three-tiered system, or

50% as is offered in Local Authority parking?

a) 40%

b) 50%

 

Q7.1 Please explain your answer, including whether the discount should be set at a different level

(free text)

 

 

 Q8 How should the level of parking charges be set and how should the levels be revised in future?

(free text)

 

 

Q9 Do you agree or disagree in principle with the idea of the Appeals Charter?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q9.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q10 Do you agree or not that the examples given in the Appeals Charter are fair and appropriate? Agree/Disagree

 

Q10.1 Please explain your answer.

You may wish, for example, to suggest additional cases to be covered in an Appeals Charter or query existing examples.

(free text)

 

Q11 Do you agree or disagree that the parking industry should contribute towards the cost of the regulation?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q11.1 Please explain your answer.

(free text)

 

YOU CAN INSTEAD GIVE MORE CONCISE ANSWERS ONLINE, USING THE MHCLG PAGE LINK.

Don’t forget that answering these questions is the easier bit…

Looking at the BSI PAS (the draft code of practice itself) involves logging in and submitting comments again, and again and again and takes more time!

There is a discussion about PAS submissions and what the pages look like, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6195417/am-i-doing-something-wrong/p1

 

untitled2020

So it looks like P4Parking is not giving up. They submited "evidence" in my POPLA appeal. No contract between them and the Landowner like i asked... just a pdf signed by some guy with no job title, no logos, nothing. They named it witness statement. As the landowner, they are saying its the property management service, which I doubt its true.

How do I find out who is the actua Landowner ?

I have 7 days to submit my comments.

Le_Kirk

untitled2020 said:

So it looks like P4Parking is not giving up. They submited "evidence" in my POPLA appeal. No contract between them and the Landowner like i asked... just a pdf signed by some guy with no job title, no logos, nothing. They named it witness statement. As the landowner, they are saying its the property management service, which I doubt its true.

How do I find out who is the actual Landowner ? 

I have 7 days to submit my comments.

Witness Statement?  Aren't they getting a little ahead of themselves, it's only a POPLA appeal!  You could try the local council and ask who pays the non-domestic business rates (some councils have a spreadsheet on their website) or you could try the Land Registry (it does cost £3).  If the contract is not signed by a couple of directors or one director and a witness, it fails the Companies Act requirement.
When you submit your comments remember you only have 2000 characters.

D_P_Dance

How do I find out who is the actual Landowner ?

Ask the landlord or the MA.  

untitled2020

I won the POPLA appeal . Thank you all for your help.

This is what I sent POPLA:

Re: P4Parking PCN, reference code xxxxxx
POPLA Code: xxxxxxx


I am the registered keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice (reference above).
I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and request that they are all considered.
1.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
2.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3.Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage




1.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:

imgur.   com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

2.bp.blogspot     com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

archive.mozilla.    org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

signazon.    com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

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:

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.

2.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

3.Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage
As a driver and resident, my tenancy agreement has primacy of contract. Since my primary contract does not mention parking companaies, parking charges, permits, or paying a third party who is a stranger to my primary contract, P4Parking has no rights to demand money from me.
There is no reason for me to display a permit so I am quite within my rights to park.
In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] ( nebula.wsimg.     com/c269da31b314e7cc17e383a625b5ae23?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 ) it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.



Then state that it fails the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore is not a valid contract.

legislation.gov.     uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

In addition, the signatures are illegible and therefore you require the scammers to prove they are actually employees of the two companies concerned as there is no indication on the document that they actually work for the two named companies or in what capacity.

As such the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament, and thus the PCNs are also invalid.

D_P_Dance

Now read this and consider whether they have breached your data or Housing Act rights.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/