Parking Ticket - First Point of Contact - Mention permission of the shop ?

homi

1/3

I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and I received a letter dated xxxx acting as a notice to keeper (NTK).  My appeal to the Operator – Park Watch – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xxxxx and rejected via an email dated xxxxx .

 I contend that as keeper I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

 

-

1 - Grace Period

2 - No Evidence of Landowner Authority

3 - Inadequately Painted Road markings

4 – Letter from the Store and proof of purchase

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

6 – Signage

7 –  Warden Patrolled Car Park

8 -  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

9 -

 

1 – Grace Period

 

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

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

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.  If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.  If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

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

 

 

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes.  Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), 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’s Code 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 3 years ago 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: http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governan ce/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf)

 

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 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 (in this case in the dark with no lighting), decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

 

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Euro Car Parks claim was 10 minutes 48 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

 

a)    The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source of lighting.

b)    Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at time of the visit – [ENTRY TIME] to [EXIT TIME] (hh:mm;ss).

c)    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.

d)    The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.

e)    The lengthiness of Euro Car Parks’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “Important Notice” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2).  

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

 

•        Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.

•        Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.

•        Decipher the confusing information being presented (one example being identifying which fees apply, as discussed further in section 2, page?? of this document).

•        Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.

•        Return to car and safely leave the car park.

 

 

 

 

 

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

homi

2/3

 

3 –  Inadequately  Painted Road markings

 

The operator did not use correct road markings warning of entering a Private Car park  .

See Fig3.1 and Fig 3.2 The rectangular bay the car was being loaded / photographed in was marked with a white line one side and another bay in front of it, which when cars are in the other bays looks no different and certainly not a ''no parking'' space. 

If it is not intended to be a bay but has a white line to the side and another bordering it at the front, then the operator must mark it to communicate that end one is not a bay.

They had ample opportunity to comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and make it clear, given they had used both yellow and white paint all around it and only needed either hatchings in yellow and/or a warning word on the tarmac.

 

The car park spaces are not marked to which store they are assigned to.

Also on the day when the fine was issued the area was much busier than normal as it was the last day before the November Lockdown and the signs could have been obscured by the vehicles due to their location.

 

Fig3.1

Fig 3.2

 

 

4 – Letter from Store and Receipt

 

 Fig 4.1 Signed letter from the store manager of xxxxx confirming that the driver was asked to pull up to the back of the store to collect / load  a bulky item on the 4/11.20.

Reads

xxxxx

To who this letter relates

This is to verify that the driver of the vehicle

Was collecting purchased items from the rear loading bay at cash generator on the date

If there was a ticket issued we would kindly ask you to into consideration that this was customer collection and not a parking matter , the driver of the vehicle had to collect from the rear as they were collection a bulky item .

 

 

Fig 4.2 Receipt of the item purchase from the store on the 4/11/20 at 14.02 ( before the parking ticket was issued ) .

 

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

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

 

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

 

The PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle. The first which shows the car with its lights on and the other with the car boot open being loaded with an illegible date / time stamp . They have also been selective in not showing that the car being loaded with the help of one of the staff of Cash Generator .00000

Also either of these images indicate the time of arrival or when the vehicle left park .

 

 

 6 .  Signage

 

 

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:

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.

 

homi

3/3

7 .  Warden Patrolled Car Park

 

The sign in the carpark is headed in large font – Warden Patrolled Car Park  , this would imply that the car park is “ physically “ patrolled by an  inspector rather than a hidden camera.

Should it not have read -  APNR Camera Controlled Car Park  if the  main method of issuing fines is from camera  , do they actually have a warden patrolling the car park or is it a method to catch people using the camera ?

 The only indication that it is camera controlled is by a tiny camera logo hidden away at the bottom of the sign which is easily missed . 

It also reads " A Valid Permit must be Displayed for inspection at all times "  in small print under the letter P , would this again not imply that the cars are checked in person rather than camera as there would be no way of checking using a camera especially with the poor quality photos ? 

 .

8 - 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.''

1505grandad

Are you quoting from the correct version of the BPA CoP covering the parking event? -  should be the latest (V8) dated Jan 2020

Redx

As above ^^^^^^^^

Section 1 is incorrect by using and quoting from the 2018 edition , now superceded by the January 2020 edition which should be the one being used for a PCN issued in 2020

homi

1505grandad said:

Are you quoting from the correct version of the BPA CoP covering the parking event? -  should be the latest (V8) dated Jan 2020

Redx said:

As above ^^^^^^^^

Section 1 is incorrect by using and quoting from the 2018 edition , now superceded by the January 2020 edition which should be the one being used for a PCN issued in 2020

Thanks for pointing that out . Would this be better ?

1 – Grace Period

 

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

Park Eye has not has indicated on either the original Letter or follow up email what was the actual duration of the vehicles stay while loading .

 

According to 13.1  BPA Code of Practice - The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.

 

•        Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.

•        Read the full terms and conditions .

•        Decipher the confusing information being presented to which area it was referring to .

•        Return to car and safely leave the car park 

Please then take into account

a)    Small signs hidden on back walls which could be obscured by parked vans.

b)     so having to wait till it was safe to leave without causing an accident .

c)    The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage.

d)    The failure to locate the signage  so as to make signs visible from all spaces (especially in a full car park ) and legible once located.

e)    The lengthiness of Park Eye ’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “Important Notice” section which is printed in tiny confusing font .

F )  The day in question was the  Thursday before the November 2020 lockdown so they area was extremely busy and needed to wait for a safe opportunity to leave .

Section 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place - but  a parking event did not take place as the car was being loaded ,

Coupon-mad

Section 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place - but  a parking event did not take place as the car was being loaded 

That's a good point but on its own it doesn't carry any clout because we don't attribute POPLA Assessors with sufficient brain cells to grasp the difference.  I think you'd have to quote from the definition of parking that HHJ Harris tried to explain, in Jopson v Homeguard, and also Lord Neuberger;s opinion in Moncrieff about 'leaving a vehicle for a period of time'.

No links given.

1505grandad

There are a couple of "Park Eye" references?

homi

1505grandad said:

There are a couple of "Park Eye" references?

Thanks for pointing that out will get it sorted . 

homi

Coupon-mad said:

Section 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place - but  a parking event did not take place as the car was being loaded 

That's a good point but on its own it doesn't carry any clout because we don't attribute POPLA Assessors with sufficient brain cells to grasp the difference.  I think you'd have to quote from the definition of parking that HHJ Harris tried to explain, in Jopson v Homeguard, and also Lord Neuberger;s opinion in Moncrieff about 'leaving a vehicle for a period of time'.

No links given.

Thanks , found this but not too sure how to word it  , would "  See Case Jopson Vs Homeguard 2016   " be enough 

Judge Harris 

Please see Jopson Vs Homeguard 2016  

Judge Harris 

"Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of

the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following:

“To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a

suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to

stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed

for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with

some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a

puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams

would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post,

newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an

interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these

purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties,

from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it.

21 Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while

unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a

frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this

was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not

be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant

delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed

the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach

would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration "