Better to POPLA or engage?

Redx

It's ok , as long as you redact all identifying personal data before submitting it on here

Chrisw_3

Thanks for that!

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ‘Park Watch’ – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx and rejected via an email dated xx. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on several grounds. 

Before doing so, it is important to set context: an occupant of the vehicle, in very late stages of pregnancy (3rd trimester), diagnosed with a condition known as ‘placenta previa’, had suggested feeling significantly unwell and required the use of a private bathroom. 

The occupant was, at the time, awaiting an extra ultrasound scan, to determine the extent of the condition and subsequent remedial action required. For reference, the NHS notes that a potential complication of ‘placenta previa’ is “a higher chance that you could bleed during your pregnancy or during your baby's birth. This bleeding can be very heavy and put you and your baby at risk” and that “You may be advised to come into hospital at the end of your pregnancy so emergency treatment (such as a blood transfusion) can be given very quickly if you bleed”.

Sensitive evidence for this diagnosis can be provided upon request, but, as can be seen, it is a considerably worrying and potentially distressing situation. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic would, also, make the finding and use of a public bathroom much more challenging than would be typical.

Given this distressing context, I would also like you to consider: 

1. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and the wider terms and conditions are not legible. 

The car park in question does not have any signs designating its entrance, and it is confusing to know its boundaries; indeed it is true to say that the boundary between ‘private’ and ‘public’ land is unclear (there is no fence or other indication of entering private property) - the private space is not clearly differentiated from public space, making confusion unavoidable. Accordingly, the supposed ‘contract’ is not rendered prominent; indeed, somebody wishing to understand the contract would not be aware of entering into contract before having done so. The signs are positioned on the back wall of the poorly outlined car-park, meaning that in order to read them, a driver would need to get out of their vehicle to walk to them.

https://imgur.com/a/7KmlmVf 

On that front, I would also draw your attention to the signage which is neither prominent, legible nor clear. Attached is a picture of the signage, which I contend is inadequate on grounds of:

1. The sign says, in small text, that ‘failure to comply with the following terms and conditions may result in a parking charge’. I believe that this language is ambiguous and confusing.
2. The ‘Warden Patrolled Premises’ are not clearly outlined as there is no ‘entrance’ to the car-park making it impossible to know if you in or out of a controlled area.
3. The lettering of some of the terms and conditions is unclear, illegible, and densely bunched together at the bottom of the sign. If the detail of the terms and conditions is so important, it should be rendered clear.
4. It is only when reading the significantly smaller and indecipherable text that a driver would be informed that it is, in fact, not that they "may" receive a parking charge, that they "will" receive a parking charge. This is two completely different messages and clouds a reader's understanding of the terms.
5. The ‘times of operation’ of ’24 hours, 7 days’ is not clear - was that 24 hours and 7 days from when the sign was put up, or is it meant to be read as ‘all day, every day’ in which case I find the sign to again be needlessly confusing to its readers.
6. The sign says ‘by parking, waiting or otherwise remaining in this car park’ and does not adequately set out its meaning of how long a car is able to wait - is a contravention committed purely by entering accidentally, and then stopping to read the sign?
7. Further, due to the unclear nature of the signage, and the requirement to get up-close to even recognise its lettering, a driver would be required to leave their car to do so. If a driver is required to leave their car, in order to read the minuscule small print of the terms, then the information is not clear enough.
8. The sign says, in small letters, that a permit must be displayed, but gives no indication of which permit is required; further, a drive would need to leave their vehicle to get close enough to read this ‘condition’, again indicating that it is nowhere near clear enough. 

Since receiving the parking charge notice, outlined above, and the significant stress it has brought, I have been inclined to research the ‘British Parking Association (BPA)s’ code of practice. I have been particularly struck with the following points which seem appropriate to the above signage:

- (18.3) “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. 

I don’t believe that the above guidance meets either the letter or the spirit of the code of practice and indeed fails this standard on several fronts - and this issue is further compounded if a passenger or driver is in distress.

2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance.

As I believe has been established on several fronts in the previous section, it seems to me the spirit of the BPA guidelines has been misinterpreted from this car-park operator, I also would like to bring to your attention a further consideration. 

As I have already mentioned, there is no indication on any signage whether there is a grace period available for a driver to make their decision on whether to remain in the carpark. 

Further, if a driver were to inadvertently drive into the car-park (which is easily done, given its poor demarcation from public land), then leave their car to approach the signage (as it’s not legible from within a car), then take some time to read the signage (as the clarity of language used is poor, and the text/font borderline unreadable), and then decide they did not agree to the terms, then presumably by that point they had already entered into the supposed contract under the ‘otherwise remaining in the carpark’ small print. It seems to me that the language is ambiguous and purposefully obfuscates the true terms and conditions of the car-park, and can be interpreted in several different ways. 

Presumably, also, the vehicle drive would need to work out whether they ‘may’ be charged, as is indicated in one part of the sign, or whether they ‘will’ be charged as is written in much smaller print further down. Again, this is not transparent and would lead to confusion, particularly if a person had difficult with reading comprehension or indeed was under duress due to a stressful situation (pregnancy complications, for instance). 

3. No evidence of Period Parked and Vehicle Images contained in Notice to Keeper - non-compliance.

There has been no evidence provided to firmly establish whether the vehicle was “parked’ or indeed trying to attempt to read and understand a complicated, illegible, poorly worded, small-printed sign, with its inconsistencies of terms and conditions. 

As noted earlier, this situation has brought a great deal of stress to an already distressing situation, and as such I have researched information to support my appeal. I understand that the ‘protections of freedoms act’ (2012), argues that the ‘Notice to Keeper’ must ‘specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking’ (para 9(2)(a).

The ‘Notice to Keeper’ from ‘Park Watch’ does not comply with this regulation, instead only claiming the ‘incident’ time/date; no information is provided about the entry nor exit time. Perhaps this indicates the difficulty in understanding ‘when’ a vehicle has entered the reportedly private land, particularly given the indistinct boundaries as mentioned earlier. Indeed, it is possible in this particular location to drive ‘through’ the car-park without any notification of having done so.

I understand that the BPA Code of Practice also outlines 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” (20.5a).

The pictures in question:

1. Clearly show a vehicle stationed in a way which indicates uncertainty about the car-park’s boundaries (as mentioned previously, there is no clear indication of this anywhere), and possibly attempting to read and understand the poor signage;
2. No indication of the vehicle entering or leaving this car-park - indeed the two pictures are ‘the same’ except from different levels of zoom suggesting some form of manipulation;
3. No evidence to suggest that these images are a) from the day in question, b) from the time in question, c) from the alleged car-park, d) of the vehicle being parked other than to read the aforementioned poorly designed, small printed sign with its confusing and inconsistent terms and conditions, and;
4. Do not contain a date and time stamp in any meaningful way.

In order to consider these pictures legitimate I would request original, un-cropped images, with the appropriate time and date stamps, clearly evidencing that the car was where it was purported to be, given that the pictures provided to not establish this beyond reasonable doubt. 

I’m sure you can understand why this situation has brought a considerable amount of heartache, from an already uncomfortable situation. I hope that you will deem this appeal to be valid and dismiss the parking charge notice. 

That's about it...be brutal if needs be! I must say, having done some research now, I'm pretty cross about their scare tactics and purposefully misleading information. I can see why you all are on this mission! 

Redx

Add no landowner authority , that is ALWAYS in a popla appeal or court case , put them to strict proof

Add a numbered bullet point menu too

Chrisw_3

All done! Reckon it's about good to go? What do you reckon to the sign? Need a magnifying glass to even get close to understanding!

Redx

I agree , but embed the picture into your pdf appeal , not a link , no links at all

Chrisw_3

Roger that, and thanks a million for your help. Will update...

Redx

You should await more replies before submitting it , in case more changes are required

Chrisw_3

Will do - just tweaking bits anyway. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

Get rid of this horrific into, we HATE it.  Can people stop copying this please?

, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ‘Park Watch’ – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx and rejected via an email dated xx. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and 

Chrisw_3

Coupon-mad said:

Get rid of this horrific into, we HATE it.  Can people stop copying this please?

, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ‘Park Watch’ – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx and rejected via an email dated xx. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and 

Noted!!