McDonalds (MET) PCN - Manager refused to take any action

Umkomaas

deejbk01 said:

Umkomaas said:

Give POPLA the actual dates in order to justify your claim that MET have failed to meet the requirements of PoFA. They need spoon-feeding this sort of information as they struggle with those dates. Give us the dates so we can check those out for you (apologies if you've already given them to us - I've not read back through the entire thread). 

Ditch 2) in its entirety, the Supreme Court put paid to that over 5 years ago. It will not help you.  Landowner/PPC loss is now irrelevant. 

Which dates?
On the PCN
the date of contravention is 6th December 2020
Date of issue is 9th december 2020

Then you can't say this in your appeal:

To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
• The NTK was not not served within the required 14 days to transfer keeper liability

deejbk01

Umkomaas said

Then you can't say this in your appeal:

To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
• The NTK was not not served within the required 14 days to transfer keeper liability

I just copied that whole section. Should I remove that one line ?

...

1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
• The NTK fails to identify the facts that caused a parking charge to arise

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator...

Umkomaas

If you're going to argue that the PPC fails to meet PoFA requirements you need to be confident in where and how it does so. Most PPCs have essentially got most of this right now, apart from a few who do not use PoFA. I don't recall MET being one of those. 

Why not dissect the NtK and check it pedantically against Schedule 4 of PoFA, then come back and tell us where it fails?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Coupon-mad

Isn't it blindingly obvious that you must remove any line that says the PCN wasn't served in time, given that it was? 

Sigh...no idea why people ask us this basic stuff, sorry but it's just so tiresome and everyone says 'I've never done this before' as if it's something hugely complicated that they need to be spoon-fed.  But anyone can see that a PCN dated a few days after the event, does meet the 14 day deadline and motorists don't need to have done this before to work that out, nor ask us which bits to remove when it is a simple matter of counting days.

That's not to say that the PCN may not be worded to include the necessary wording from para 9 of the POFA, but we've no idea if you've checked that properly.  It's not as simple as looking for mention of ''the POFA 2012''.  The law says what a PCN must state, not that it has to mention that law, per se. 

It may be that the MET PCN is non-POFA and it is easy to see, just spot the difference in the wording against para 9 of Sch4.    @Umkomaas has kindly given you the link (that was in the NEWBIES thread anyway) so you can easily look for yourself and see whether, for example, the 'keeper liability warning' words from 9(2)f about the recipient becoming liable after 28/29 days (depending on how they express it) are actually there or not.

Anyone can do that.  Literally any newbie.

deejbk01

Redx said:

Get rid of number 2

That argument died with the Beavis case in 2015 , so over 5 years ago

The correct categories will include all or most of the following

POFA 2012
The BPA CoP 2020 , January edition
Clause 13 from the above , grace periods

No landowner authority

Poor and inadequate signage

The CRA 2015

Based on the advice given here I have rewritten. PSB.

N.b I cannot find anywhere on the Newbie forum nor in any POPLA templates anything mentioning Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) I can only county court appeals that reference it. Should I copy the contents from a county court appeal?
N.n.b Did I use the correct CPA CoP 2020 text? I can't find any reference to the January edition on the Newbie post nor in any other POPLA appeals.

 1) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
2) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver
3) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
 
 1) 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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
 
Also, Premier Park have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Premier Park v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. Premier Park has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.
2) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver
The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:
18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.
Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Met Parking Services Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. When the driver arrived at the car park it was in the hours of dusk and therefore impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible.
As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar Parking Eye 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
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 and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs 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.
In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.
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 the majority 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 operator’s 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.”
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 an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:
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.
Based on these points, it is believed that Met Parking Services Ltd. are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions, driver safety and ensuring the appropriate illumination of signs. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that Met Parking Services Ltd. be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighboring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.
 
3.     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.
 
 
4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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.  I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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.''
 

Lastly, I have removed the non-compliance to POFA timescales, since it seems that the PCN does state 

Please be warned that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we dot know both the name of the driver and a current address for service of the driver, we will have the right to recover from you, so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid.

Redx

The CRA is a law , the latest and current consumer law , dated 2015 , which contracts must abide by , so consumer law may be a factor in any appeal or defence !! It certainly applies to private parking contracts , never been superceded. The implied parking contract must meet the CRA 2015 requirements by law , it's either an unwritten but agreed contract , or it's not

It's as obvious on the nose on your face that any contract must also follow the correct CoP in force at the time of the incident , the latest BPA V8 version being dated January 2020 , so in your case it's that one and not any previous version , because there have been more than half a dozen versions in 8 years

POFA 2012 is also the latest law on Keeper liability , so is also the current version and date of that law , never superceded. It's your task to check if MET complied with POFA , or not , if yes then POFA does not assist you

Many other laws and rules may be a factor , such as the Limitations Act 1980 etc , never been superceded

The Supreme court on Beavis ruling may apply !! The Jopson case may apply (or not) , many other court cases may apply too , especially precedents !! That Beavis precedent killed off your no loss argument for example

This isn't a legal forum so not everything is going to be in the newbies FAQ sticky thread , plus some items may have no relevance , but many will and I detailed many of them , it's your job to research them once given advice and facts

If MET complied with POFA then 4 is irrelevant , compliance with POFA means a keeper can be pursued and the driver aspect is not relevant , they don't have to prove who was driving if they can hold the keeper responsible for the actions by complying with POFA

If MET was the parking company , why are you saying it was Premier Park ?????

1505grandad

"Also, Premier Park have provided no evidence ......."?

You should be quoting BPA CoP V8:-
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

Redx

1505grandad said:

"Also, Premier Park have provided no evidence ......."?

You should be quoting BPA CoP V8:-
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

Plus it's not even Premier Park involved in this saga !!! It's MET , lol 🙃😁

KeithP

Redx said:

1505grandad said:

"Also, Premier Park have provided no evidence ......."?

You should be quoting BPA CoP V8:-
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

Plus it's not even Premier Park involved in this saga !!! It's MET , lol 🙃😁

Yes, the thread title says MET, but can we be sure?

I've just read...

e)    The lengthiness of Euro Car Parks’ signage...

and this...

...which Euro Car Parks claim was 10 minutes 48 seconds... 

 

Redx

Ha ha , lol , so I am going off the first post and thread title , but only skim read the popla appeal until grandad mentioned Premier Park , so edited my post accordingly 😊😜

I am now wondering how many parking companies are involved in this dogs dinner !! Lol