Parking at Costa

Umkomaas

Anything else i should add? 2000 character only. 

Where do you get that from?

KeithP

But @Umkomaas and @Fruitcake, the OP has filed a PoPLA appeal and is now writing a 2000 character response to the PPC's rebuttal.  

And you both noted that - here and here.   

jrc123

Yes correct , I am filling in the 2000 character response 

in a previous post I put my POPLA appeal which the company appealed various points

the draft on the previous post was my 2000 character response summarising my appeal

any other post which have used a template for this?

Fruitcake

My apologies. I believe I should slink off now and let my one brain cell cool off before I post again. 

jrc123

Hi All,

As expected i received today the POPLA appeal as unsuccessful.

Is this common may I ask?
Is it bad to lose a POPLA case?
What happens next?

Any help/advice is much appreciated :-)

Here is the long dribble they produced back to me:

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says that the signage is confusing and unclear, so no valid contract was formed, and no agreement to pay £100. They say there is no entrance sign. The appellant says that the print on the signage at the site is too small, and the signs do not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say the signs are also placed too high to read. The appellant says there is a sign which states to pay by phone, which was impossible to read, and the bays were marked Costa Only. They say the signage has now been changed, following the event, and a board has been put up outside Costa, and the markings on the bay now say staff, which supports that the signage was inadequate at the time. The appellant says that the operator does not have a valid contract with the landowner, in accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code. In their comments, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a photograph of the signage containing terms, photographs of the bay before and after the word ‘staff being added, a photograph of the board now in place, and a photograph of the sign stating to pay by phone, which I have considered in my assessment.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not identified as the driver on the date of the event, the evidence shows that they are the keeper. I will therefore be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs taken by its CCTV cameras. These show the vehicle parked in a bay marked ‘COSTA ONLY’ between 09:05 and 09:09. The operator has provided a photograph of the signage next to these bays. The terms and conditions state: “COSTA STAFF PARKING ONLY… VEHCILES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO PARK, WAIT OR STOP IN BAYS MARKED COSTA ONLY AT ANYTIME UNLESS THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN PRE-REGISTERED WITH OUR OFFICE”. It further states: “IF YOU PARK ON THIS LAND YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF PARKING AND CONTRAVENING THE DISPLAYED TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU CONTRACTUALY AGREE TO PAY A £100 Parking Charge Notice”. The operator has provided evidence that the vehicle was not pre-registered. The operator has also provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent. In order for the operator to make the keeper liable for the PCN, it must meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I do consider that there is a contract between the driver and the operator which has been breached and, the name and current address for the driver has not been provided. Furthermore, the notice sent meets the relevant requirements of POFA. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability to the keeper. I will now turn to the appellants grounds of appeal to consider if these make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. The appellant says that the signage is confusing and unclear, so no valid contract was formed, and no agreement to pay £100. They say that the print on the signage at the site is too small, and the signs do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice, and the signs are also placed too high to read. The appellant has provided a photograph of the sign containing the terms, as has the operator. The appellant has provided a photograph of the signage taken from a distance, so I can see how high the sign is. Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The signs containing the terms are placed on the wall, directly next to the bays stating ‘COSTA ONLY’. Signs must be placed at a height so that they cannot be obscured by parked vehicles. Having reviewed the photographs provided, I do not consider the signs to be too high to read. The signs are located so that they can be seen by motorists using these bays, at the time of parking and leaving their vehicle. They do not need to be read from the vehicle. When entering onto a privately managed site such as this one, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Motorists do not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that they are afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the motorist’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. I do not consider the text to be too small to read. I can read the text on the sign in the appellants image clearly, and the size of the image is much smaller than what the actual sign would be in person. The operator has provided a photograph of a vehicle in the bay, with the signage in view , and this demonstrates the height and the size of signage. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the signage does afford motorists of this opportunity, and it meets the standard set by the BPA. The signage gives adequate notice of the sum of the charge, for failing to comply with the terms. The appellant says that there is no entrance sign however, they have provided a photograph of the entrance sign to the car park. They say this sign is misleading, as it states pay by phone however section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”. The entrance sign states: “PRIVATE LAND… SEE CAR PARK NOTICES FOR FURTHER DETAILS”. While the sign does state: “PAY BY PHONE PARKING”. This is not a specific term. Appendix B of the Code of Practice explains: “Signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking”. The operator has demonstrated in its case file that in general, the site is a pay by phone site, but these bays have a specific use, for staff only, and as such, different terms apply to these marked bays. As the entrance sign informs motorists to see the car park notices for further details, motorists must review the signage when they park, and the nearest signage to these bays explains that the bays marked COSTA ONLY are for staff parking. Based on the evidence provided by the appellant, I am satisfied that the site does have an entrance sign, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. This sign is also in the format set out in Appendix B of the Code. Although the bays stated ‘COSTA ONLY’, and the appellant has provided a photograph of this, in addition to the operators signage containing the terms, there are further Costa branded signs, which are displayed at each bay, which state: “COSTA STAFF PARKING ONLY”. I therefore consider it to be clear that the bays were for Costa staff, and not customers. I can see no evidence of any signage implying that customers could park in the bays. The appellant say the signage has now been changed, following the event, and a board has been put up outside Costa, and the markings on the bay now say staff, which supports that the signage was inadequate at the time. The appellant has provided a photograph of the board and the bays which now state: “COSTA STAFF ONLY”. While I acknowledge that these have been put in place since the date of the event, the board is not branded by the operator, and appears to have been put up by Costa directly. Further, the markings on the bays are not the operators responsibility. The operator is only responsible for advertising the terms and conditions, and enforcing them, not the markings of the bays. I do not consider that this means the signage was inadequate initially. I have already reviewed the evidence of the signage as it was, and determined that it was adequate. The operator confirms that Costa have added the board and markings to prevent motorists from making an assumption without reading the signage displayed. This does not mean that the signage was inadequate, it was clearly displayed however, it is the motorists responsibility to review it. The appellant says that the operator does not have a valid contract with the landowner, in accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code. Section 7.1 of the Code states: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for”. The operator has provided redacted evidence of its contract, confirming its authority, so I am satisfied that it has authority in accordance with the Code. My observations also extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment and signage on site to manage the function of enforcement, and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. Not many landowners would look on while someone operates on their land without their permission. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. By parking on this land, this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the vehicle was parked in a bay marked ‘COSTA ONLY’, and it was not pre-registered, these terms and conditions were not met. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Is this common may I ask?   
Yes.  Most people lose.

Is it bad to lose a POPLA case?
No.  Ignore it.

What happens next?
The PPC will send silly debt letters demanding money that the Government has banned being added!  See new Code of Practice all over this forum.  See also the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread about 'ignoring the debt collector' stage.

Come back to this thread if they try a small claim and keep the entire evidence pack that they submitted to POPLA (you may have to ask POPLA for a copy when complaining that this is totally wrong):

Further, the markings on the bays are not the operators responsibility. The operator is only responsible for advertising the terms and conditions, and enforcing them, not the markings of the bays. 

No, no, no.  The bay marking ARE part of the signage an always were the PPC's responsibility.  They mark the lines and place the signs.  The new Code of Practice gets this right and talks about 'surface markings' and those are indisputably part of the signage.  A court would realise this and the fact that Costa had so many complaints shows the first signs were inadequate.

I don't think you should have included the close-up of the sign at all.  Never mind. It's only POPLA!  Complain though about the above and ask for the evidence pack from POPLA (as you can't access it later?) so you can use it if the PPC try court.

jrc123

Hi @Coupon-mad thanks for the comments.

I have the pdf of the evidence pack.
I shall come back if anything materialises from them.

thanks to you and the team for the help!

jrc123

Hi All, 
So the day has arrived, in total there were 3 tickets and they combine them into a claim and I have recieved the letter from the court.

SO......... next steps are to refuse/deny the claim and send my defence?
I receieved the letter dated 20th October and I have 14 days to send it back?

I have plenty of before and after photos of the poor and inadequate signage which is a huge PLUS!

thanks for your help

KeithP

jrc123 said:

Hi All, 
So the day has arrived, in total there were 3 tickets and they combine them into a claim and I have recieved the letter from the court.

SO......... next steps are to refuse/deny the claim and send my defence?
I receieved the letter dated 20th October and I have 14 days to send it back?

I have plenty of before and after photos of the poor and inadequate signage which is a huge PLUS!

thanks for your help

I am going to assume that post says you have received a County Court Claim Form with an Issue Date of 20th October 2022 on it.
Is that a reasonable assumption?

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th October, you have until Tuesday 8th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 25th October, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 22nd November 2022 to file your Defence.

That's well over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

jrc123

Hi All, are there any examples of defenses for poor signage that have been done recently?

Is this the latest defense which can be used?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

thanks for your help