Got PCN ticket

Will123321

Quick question, can I use this photo on my appeal?

Will123321

Coupon-mad said:

No that is not right.  That's not a POPLA appeal.  Please re-read post 3, click on the examples of what a POPLA appeal looks like and use the appeal points relevant to your case.

Obviously it's generic stuff (appealing to POPLA) and there's no need for us to provide special POPLA points for the over a hundred BPA members!

Alright, so I made my own version. I still have to work on nr4. Which I'm a bit confused if I have to attach any images or no. Or I should use same images from an other file I found online.


Let me know what do you think. I was thinking to include some GDPR as well, since they have my data.

https://easyupload.io/t60okm

Le_Kirk

Embed any images you want to use rather than providing links. Use any images that help you to make or emphasise your case.

Will123321

Le_Kirk said:

Embed any images you want to use rather than providing links. Use any images that help you to make or emphasise your case.

Can I use any images for that? Even if these are not for my case? 

KeithP

Will123321 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Embed any images you want to use rather than providing links. Use any images that help you to make or emphasise your case.

Can I use any images for that? Even if these are not for my case? 

You need to apply some intelligence.

For example, you cannot say "here is a picture of the entrance sign" and show a picture of a sign from a different car park.

But you can show a picture of, say, the ParkingEye sign used in the Beavis case, and uphold that as what a sign should look like.

Will123321

That's what I have added to this section from some templates I found on this forum:

Let me know if these looks alright, or if needs any adjustments. 

4. 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


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 Parking Eye 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:



I would draw the assessor's attention to the Signage Below. It is therefore very important that any sign is clearly mounted on the wall; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without misunderstanding.  



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, that should look like as a comparison to the sign attached above:

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 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:


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


''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.''



''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 judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.


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.

Coupon-mad

Embed them to make one PDF document, like a storybook with pictures.

Yes use that photo and point out that instead of sensibly covering up the broken wheel-clamping sign from over a decade ago (clamping has been a criminal offence since 2012!) they've deliberately placed their sign two feet higher than it could have been and the £100 is not in bold nor prominent nor large text or font.  In fact, from a standing position or from a driver's seat the terms are illegible, unlike in the Beavis case (compare both signs).

The effect of both signs together, one above the other, is that the only sum of money visible is '£125 wheel clamp release fee' which is illegal and was part of the t&cs offered by a different operator entirely.   No contract to pay £100 to the BPA operator was even known about, let alone possible to have agreed.

Will123321

Had to review again and make some adjustments.

https://easyupload.io/2r7a24

Coupon-mad

I don't think anyone will want to download anything on an unknown hosting site.  Could you pop it into Dropbox and provide a (redacted of your data) 'share' link for all to see?

Will123321

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think anyone will want to download anything on an unknown hosting site.  Could you pop it into Dropbox and provide a (redacted of your data) 'share' link for all to see?

Thanks. Had to make an account there.

Have a look.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/17ooy8sr50sdvh6yn2jcg/popla-Copy-2.docx?dl=0&rlkey=tvun0zg4u4u99a6m2uqf6rfet