Popla Draft Vs Private Parking Solutions

SimpsonSimonSon

Dear Board Members,

Firstly thank you for creating these fantastic resources and giving your time to help people like me fight these despicable fiends without resorting to alternative means. 

Now onto the matter of my appeal; after following the instructions on the newbie thread I have arrived at the POPLA stage. I present to you my appeal. Please have a look and let me know how I can improve my chances of victory. I havn't seen a appeal based on telemetric data from a blackbox so I wanted to ask you whether it is a good line of attack. 
Much appriacited 
Mr X

SimpsonSimonSon

Trying to attach a pdf copy is proving difficult from my phone.

Coupon-mad

The forum isn't allowing PDFs at the moment, no idea why!  You could take a photo of the pages and show those pics.  Daft, isn't it.

SimpsonSimonSon

Dear Sir or Madam,

Ticket number: XXX Vehicle registration number: XXX Dear POPLA Assessor,

I am submitting this formal appeal against the above detailed PCN, received from Private Parking Solutions (PPS) Ltd, as the keeper of the vehicle on the date of the alleged breach of their terms and conditions.

The reasons why I am not liable for this charge are set out below. 1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice nonon-compliance 2) Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 4) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements 5) No Evidence that I as the keeper of the the vehicle am liable for an to charge

6) Excessive fine for 3 minutes and 36 seconds spent in parking bay in which time the owner or right holder of the the parking bay did not attempt to utilise bay. Point One Grace Period

The alleged contravention did not occur

Quite simply, the parking attendant got it wrong and the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact that the vehicle spent less than 5 minutes in the space. During which time the engine was recorded as idling. Please see attached evidence, as proof of my claim.

Evidence one: Arrival time of my vehicle as captured by PPS. Evidence two: RAC black box showing engine idling:
Screen shot from RAC telemetrics application.

The driver of the vehicle during this time could of pulled up read the PPS sign re-entered the vehicle and left the site.

Evidence three: total journey time and route of the vehicle.

This screen shot shows total journey time as 33 minutes and 40 seconds. That the car idled on Holloway street and then continued up the road turning around and returning to it's point of origin.

Evidence four: final photograph of the vehicle by PPS before vehicle departure.

PPS can only prove that the time vehicle was at the site was was less than 5 minutes. The RAC black box installed on the vehicle shows the vehicle was idling. Furthermore the telemetric data shows the vehicle leaving the site soon afterwards to continue the journey.

According to the BPA code of practice the driver of the vehicle was well within his rights to pull up, observe the parking conditions and leave again. 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:

“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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.”

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

“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

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.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) and (13.4) clearly state that the Grace Period to enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst (13.2) and (13.4) do 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 each should apply to (13.1) 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.”

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Private Parking Solutions Limited can prove was 3 minutes and 36 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 – 19:20.58 Point Two Inadequate Signage

There was insufficient signage. The parking spot in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed.

SimpsonSimonSon

The main thrust of my argument, I have a few more pages based on templates slightly edited to apply to my situation.

SimpsonSimonSon

Point Two Inadequate Signage

There was insufficient signage. The parking spot in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence,I have gathered as proof.Evidence one: small sign unlighted, high on wall and behind parking bay. BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:

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

BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix states:

“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material”

Furthermore that there is no ground marking indicating that the parking spot is private, or if there is, it is not clear and obvious in low light or in wet conditions.

Evidence two: inability to see ground markings indicating private parking. We can also see in this image how dark the wall is where the sign is positioned.

Evidence Three: Weather conditions on the night reducing legibility of sign (covered in raindrops) and small letters. The image above shows a close up of a sign nearest to parking bay. It is unremarkable, small, not lit, not immediately obvious as the parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. 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 cannot be reasonably assumed (particularly given this case took place after sunset in poor visibility conditions without any signage being adequately lit) that a driver drove passed and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the parking bay, nor parked near one.

I would also like to highlight the discrepancy in lighting conditions between the far shots and this photo which has obviously had its lighting levels changed.

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 be 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 font size, which is illegible in most photographs, sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

From the evidence shown above, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put Private Parking Solutions Ltd 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: xxx

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

Xxx

''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:

Xxx

'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.''

Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Local Parking Security 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.

SimpsonSimonSon

Sorry for the photos being at the end and not in the text. For some reason I couldn't upload a pdf version even after compression.

XXX was where a website was posted but the forum wouldn't allow that.

SimpsonSimonSon

I have a few more pages but this is the most important part and the other pages are based on templates you have seen before.

SimpsonSimonSon

Coupon-mad said:

The forum isn't allowing PDFs at the moment, no idea why!  You could take a photo of the pages and show those pics.  Daft, isn't it.

Sorry I only just saw this. Would you like it in image form, might be easier to read.

Coupon-mad

 received from Private Parking Solutions (PPS) Ltd,

Can't be because they are not BPA members.

I think what you've shown us is readable. Just had no time to read it yet!

SimpsonSimonSon

screenshots of the pdf