Another Ticket to contest

Coupon-mad

No, I already told you what the often winning point at POPLA v ECP has been this year.

Umkomaas

darkestmoment said:

Evening,
So date of event is 09/11 and date issued is 18/11.
Does this mean that any chance of getting this revoked is only by pushing the retailers present for the car park? (Aldi, costa, B&Q etc) ?

If it's a multi outlet retail site, you're probably best looking for the managing agent to complain to. You can try the outlets there, but I suspect it is the MA you need. 

Beyond that, you have a very good chance with a POPLA appeal. Please read the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky, start from the end of it and work a few pages back and you will see a number of decisions going against ECP on the basis of their £100 charge not being prominent. Learn from those as to how to frame any future POPLA appeal for this case. 

darkestmoment

Afternoon All, 

Update on the above.

I received a rejection to initial appeal to Euro Car Parks on 12/01/22 as expected using the template from this forum.
I however made a complaint to both Aldi and B&Q regarding this notice with kindly requesting them  to notify the landowner/Euro Car Parks to drop the parking charge notice.

Aldi have been a little helpful over Facebook chat, initially looked into trying to get this charge cancelled but came back "as the car park is not managed by Aldi, we would recommend appealing your parking charge directly with the issuer".  I have since responded stating that my initial appeal has been rejected and require further support from them to assist, they are looking into it again and awaiting their response.

B&Q - "Please be advised that we do not have control over the car park, I would kindly advise you to contact the car park company to resolve this issue directly". I have responded back stating my appeal has been unsuccessful and require support from them to help with the issue.

darkestmoment

Ive started drafting my POPLA appeal and below is my 1st draft, my main tailored point is number 1 and feel I might have a case?

Any thoughts/edits required?
There is no last date listed on my appeal outcome that I have to appeal to POPLA, is there a set time period?
Thanks

Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v Euro Car Parks 

 

Points

1.     The signs in this car park are not adequate, prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is missing notice of the sum of the parking charge itself upon entry.

2.     The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3.     No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4.     Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach

5.     No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

6.     Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

7.     The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

8.     The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

 

1, The signs in this car park are not adequate, prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is missing notice of the sum of the parking charge itself upon entry.

 

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 is 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. I am of the view that the signage at the site St.Albans Griffiths Retail Park fails to meet the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012

 

A driver entering the car park from Graham Close into this Euro Car Parks is met with a small sign that is difficult to read from a drivers seating position.

  

Drivers view of a small entrance sign upon turning right and entering the car park.

It is straightforward to conclude from the above photo that;

·       There is no ground boundary marking indicating the start and end of the venue

·        There is no clear sign indicating the entrance/exit of the venue

 

When the driver arrived at the car park entrance turning right, the small sign provided would have been impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed.  The initial entrance sign in the car park is poorly located (too high up on the passenger side of the vehicle), consists of miniscule size font used on both signs and therefore removed any fair opportunity for a driver to read about any of the terms and conditions that this car park had included.

 

 

The above photo has been taken standing outside directly in front of it and even then remains still difficulty to read all of it. The miniscule size font used on both signs would not be possible to be read from a driver sitting in his car upon entering the car park.  This fails to meet the BPA’s code of practice stating that “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times’

 

Importantly, there is no notice that a £100 Parking Charge Notice applies if a driver overstays the set free period. This is vital and fails to meet BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) which states:

 

“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and

deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling

drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a

standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance

signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and

conditions they must be aware of.”

 

“You must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the

parking area.” and (18.3): “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in

intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

 

  

The driver of the vehicle passed this entrance sign and parked in the nearest spot outside Costa.  There is no other signs in view to the driver that any £100 Parking Charge Notice applies if they over stayed the set free period.

There is a different type of signage listed at the end of the car park which the driver would have not been anywhere near or seen which indicates in miniscule small front size that £100 Parking Charge notice is in operation.  Whilst this also fails to meet the criteria of “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times” as per BPA’s code of practice, this was not even visible to the driver in this situation as demonstrated in the above photos.

 

 

Eurocar parks has failed to list adequate signage to this driver and therefore categorically no contract has been established between the driver and Euro Car Parks. 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.

 

Above is an aerial view of the layout and signage of this car park.

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 'ParkingEye 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

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 as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

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, there had not been even any mention of a £100 parking charge notice to this driver! 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, the entrance sign does not clearly mention any parking charge and a different sign that had been located at the opposite end of the car park (not viewed by drier) 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 operators 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.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

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

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.

 Full draft appeal:

Euro Car Parks PCN Popla 1st draft.pdf

KeithP

Check all the links in your PoPLA appeal do what you want them to do.

Hint: they don't. 

Coupon-mad

Not sure why you haven't done as was advised clearly by @Umkomaas a month ago?  Could have been cancelled by now.

Is your POPLA Code even in date now? They last 33 days only.

POPLA was not the thing to do first.  Nor was complaining to the stores.

darkestmoment

KeithP said:

Check all the links in your PoPLA appeal do what you want them to do.

Hint: they don't. 

Thanks for reviewing, I shall go through them and check to ensure correct.

Coupon-mad said:

Not sure why you haven't done as was advised clearly by @Umkomaas a month ago?  Could have been cancelled by now.

Is your POPLA Code even in date now? They last 33 days only.

POPLA was not the thing to do first.  Nor was complaining to the stores.

Euro Car Parks have only just responded to my initial appeal back on 12/01 providing POPLA Code for first time.  They have not  stated on letter how long It will be valid for though so assume its 33 days from that thanks.

If you are referering to his previous comment of "If it's a multi outlet retail site, you're probably best looking for the managing agent to complain to. You can try the outlets there, but I suspect it is the MA you need."  I have attempted to search online who owns this car park and who the managing agent is but am having no luck, so have resorted to pressing the stores at this stage.

Any suggestions on how I could possibly find this out?

@Umkomaas second part had been "Beyond that, you have a very good chance with a POPLA appeal. Please read the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky, start from the end of it and work a few pages back and you will see a number of decisions going against ECP on the basis of their £100 charge not being prominent. Learn from those as to how to frame any future POPLA appeal for this case"

I have been preparing a response to POPLA as last attempt as understand from reading on here that the PNC will be difficult to revoke if down that venue. Been reviewing other cases and building a case around the poor signage and no listed £100 charge on the entrance sign.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

So you click on the website link and contact the property firm shown. It's right there (first result).

darkestmoment

Coupon-mad said:

So you click on the website link and contact the property firm shown. It's right there (first result).

Well honestly cannot believe how blind Ive been with that, been search for landowner and management agent in all my terms and not having anything come up. Show just searching the name of the park on here and its there without me even realising. 

Would be going down that route however have had a good result back from Aldi Facebook chat...
Thanks for all your guidance on these forums, helped me get out of a few sticky occasions!

Coupon-mad

Very good news!

Now you've won this battle and earned the 'virtual t-shirt', please don't disappear just yet.

A final Public Consultation is coming.

We need you; motorists need you to help us make a difference forever.  What a waste of your time this was, and why should there be massive £100 'penalties' and such a scary 'litigation culture' for parking at some shops? 

This drives people away, literally.

Join us in trying to end the conniving PPC and DRA 'added fees' fuelling the court culture.  There will be one window of opportunity - the final Public Consultation is anticipated very soon.

This is the one favour we ask of everyone:

If you are not likely to pop back here every week to check, please set up email alerts for this forum and bookmark this thread (below) as we intend that one of us posts on it when the Government opens the Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333989/mse-parking-ticket-appeals-guide-feedback#latest

Read the latest posts there.

The PPC money-grabbers have blocked the new Code by filing for Judicial Reviews.  Stopped the declared and much welcomed parking code from February 2022, which stated that added £70 false 'DRA fee' extortion was to be banned and that parking levels would start at £50.

It's on hold. Motorists urgently need it reinstated and the ban on false 'DRA fees' confirmed, to stop the rot.

This year will be your chance to make a difference, plus any other drivers you know (family, friends) who are also fed up to the back teeth with the greedy and unscrupulous parking industry and the stranglehold they have on people.

We need high numbers of real victims to make a point of responding to this final Consultation.