Parking Group PCN - Chester le Street

jozxyqk

Coupon-mad said:

As it was darker, go an hour or two later and get some (several) photos showing no signs at all.

That's how to win at POPLA but you MUST embed the metadata (time & date) into your images or they are no evidence. 

Thank you - will do. So (forgive my ignorance) - can you confirm that the order of events is:

1. Appeal via the company's website using the forum text ("predatory conduct..." - am I ok to remove references to the ticket machine as I didn't buy a ticket and they state that the charge is for non-payment?). Expect this to be refused.

2. Write to my MP (sadly there isn't a specific business that uses that car park).

3. POPLA appeal to include photos of the area with inadequate signage (dumb Q: does embedding metadata mean saving date/time/location info in the file properties?)

4. Depends what happens with POPLA....but ignore any debt collection letters.

Coupon-mad

Yep, that's it. 

jozxyqk

Interesting evening...I went back to take several more pics (in my wife's car). I was there less than 5 mins and heading back to the car when a loud voice called out. I ignored it, got in and as I was about to set off a bloke in a transit van stopped right in front of me, shouting something and holding a phone - presumably taking a pic or video.

I ignored him and drove off, making sure I wasn't followed.

So either it was one of the parking attendants less than happy at me minding my own business taking pics in a dark car park, or I accidentally disturbed a drug deal. I suspect the former.

I'm half expecting my wife to get a parking charge now...(but I was definitely there under 5 mins...the photos are time stamped!)

Umkomaas

jozxyqk said:

Interesting evening...I went back to take several more pics (in my wife's car). I was there less than 5 mins and heading back to the car when a loud voice called out. I ignored it, got in and as I was about to set off a bloke in a transit van stopped right in front of me, shouting something and holding a phone - presumably taking a pic or video.

I ignored him and drove off, making sure I wasn't followed.

So either it was one of the parking attendants less than happy at me minding my own business taking pics in a dark car park, or I accidentally disturbed a drug deal. I suspect the former.

I'm half expecting my wife to get a parking charge now...(but I was definitely there under 5 mins...the photos are time stamped!)

I wouldn't put it past a desperate operative hoping to add to his Christmas bonus!

jozxyqk

Appeal submitted. Their online portal had a lot more photos of the car and some close-ups of their signs, all time-stamped.

They're bound to reject, but the overall signage in the area is poor, and it's poorly lit too. All it would need are some large signs saying "this is not a council car park and its offer of free parking doesn't apply here".

jozxyqk

No surprise - appeal rejected so parking group limited are off my Xmas cards list. Looks like a copy paste response claiming there is sufficient signage. Onto POPLA it is.

jozxyqk

I'm going to finish my POPLA statement over the weekend, if I post a redacted version of it here, would someone more experienced be able to review it? A good chunk of the text will probably look familiar....

jozxyqk

Draft POPLA text, thanks in advance for taking a look at it. I guess the images won't copy-paste across so just let me know if you need me to upload any. Apologies if the formatting looks a bit wonky on here:

Appeal re POPLA Code: XXXXXXXXXX v Parking Group Limited

Vehicle registration: XXXX XXX

POPLA ref: XXXXXXXXXX

On 19 December 2022, I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter (dated 09 December 2022) acting as a notice to the registered keeper (NtK). The parking charge notice stated that the reason for issue was a failure to pay for parking. As the keeper of the vehicle, I filed an appeal to the operator – Parking Group Limited (PGL) – which was submitted and acknowledged on 21 December 2022 and rejected by a letter dated 22 December 2022. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

2) There are unclear entrance signs for the regular entry points, and 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

4) No evidence of period parked – the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements.

 

1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice version 8 (January 2020) 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 states that:

(13.1) “The driver must have the chance to read the Terms and Conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park, but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.”

(13.3) “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display)…a grace period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.1) and (13.3) clearly states that the Grace Period to enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst it should be made clear that 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.”

PGL did not state the duration of the vehicle’s visit in their PCN.

In their response to reject the initial appeal against the PCN, PGL have indicated that a time of approximately 10 minutes elapsed, according to some of the photographs included with their rejection letter of 22 December 2022 (these pictures were not included in the NtK). It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

1.       The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source of lighting.

2.       Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at time of the visit (approx. 1730 on 06 December 2022).

3.       The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 19.1, 19.2 and 19.3) and the impact of that upon the time taken to locate and understand the signage prior to entering into a contract.

4.       The failure to light signage so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.

5.       The lack of clear writing in PGL’s signage and the amount of small text relative to the size of the signs.

All of the factors discussed above merely serve to increase the time taken to:

1.       Locate a sign indicating the entrance.

2.       Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.

3.       Read and understand the full terms and conditions, in the dark.

4.       Decipher the confusing information being presented.

5.       Decide not to park and therefore not enter into a contract.

6.       Return to the car and safely leave the car park.

I will present examples of the signage visible from a typical parking space under similar lighting conditions to the time of the visit later in this document.

jozxyqk

(part 2)

2) There are unclear entrance signs for the regular entry points, and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

Figure 1 shows an annotated map that shows the layout of Market Hall car park. The red line shows the boundaries of the car park and the green lines indicate the entry and exit points, all sited on Mains Park Road (there are bollards preventing access from Front Street).

Figure 1. Google Maps representation of the car park. The red line shows the outline of the car park which can only be accessed from Mains Park Road (green lines – the main entrance/exit is the middle one).

BPA’s Code of Practice (19.2) 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.”

Figure 2 shows a picture of the main entrance and exit to this car park, from Mains Park Road. This was taken at about 1730 in early January 2023 (i.e., under the same conditions as this case).

 

Figure 2. The main entrance and exit of Market Hall car park

It is straightforward to conclude that, from the only access road:

1.       There is no lighting on the signage, with the only illumination being from the street lamp across the road.

2.       With the exception of the “P” parking symbols, the signs are illegible from the point of view of a driver approaching from the main road. This lack of clarity is made worse at night, when the approaching driver must simultaneously negotiate traffic on the main road, traffic entering and exiting from one of the 3 access points, and traffic traveling round the car park in search of a space.

3.       In particular, the signage does not make it clear that the area is a private car park rather than a council one.

BPA’s Code of Practice (19.3) 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.”

Figure 3 to Figure 6 show pictures of the car park that were taken under similar conditions to the evening of concern (that is, after sunset in December 2022). It is clear from the images that the parking terms signs are not conspicuous or legible from most areas of the car park. They are also not lit directly.

 

Figure 3. The north west corner of the car park.

 

Figure 4. View of the main entrance/exit from roughly the centre of the car park.

 

Figure 5. The south east corner of the car park, looking towards Mains Park Road.

 

Figure 6. The west end of the car park, looking NW towards Front Street.

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix states:

“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”

“There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background.”

“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.”

It is clear from the images in Figure 7 and Figure 8 that this is not the case. As well as not being prominent, the signs are written using a combination of colours that makes understanding the text difficult, particularly after dark.

 

Figure 7. Parking info and terms and conditions, next to the main entrance/exit.

 

Figure 8. A second terms and conditions sign, near the main entrance/exit.

All items above indicate the contravention of BPA’s Code of Practice (19.2) which states: “…you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.” and (19.3): “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The signs containing terms and conditions are inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of small-type text that is expected to be read and understood in full before the action of parking takes place. These signs are clearly not in compliance with BPA’s Code of Practice (19.3) and appendix B.

It cannot be reasonably assumed (particularly as this case took place after sunset in a poorly lit car park) that the driver drove past these signs and was able to read them in full. The lack of any signage in many parts of this car park, including near where this vehicle was parked, supports this point. I put PGL to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs.

The bulk of the lettering appears to be no larger than 40 font size following this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is an 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.''

When the driver arrived at this car park it was impossible to 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 small and poorly located (low height, illegible from a moving vehicle negotiating traffic), and poorly visible after dark. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.

Although the parking charge notice of £100 quoted on the sign (see Figure 7) is in a slightly larger type than the bulk of the text, the use of two similarly light colours and the amount of text used in a small area combine to make the message unclear at best. It should also be noted that this sign is only present close to the main entrance/exit, and is not visible to a pedestrian leaving on foot in any other direction.

At the time of this case, Durham County Council had an allowance of free parking in council car parks after 2pm. Figure 9 shows a screengrab that was taken from the council website, https://www.durham.gov.uk/parking on 19 Dec 2022).

Figure 9. Screengrab (taken 19/12/2022) of Durham County Council website relating to free parking after 2pm.

It should be noted that there are 2 council-run car parks approximately 200m to the north of Market Hall car park referred to in this case, along with several more around the town centre. It is reasonable for a driver unfamiliar with the town centre not to realise that the Market Hall car park was not a council-run car park, and therefore not covered by the council’s free parking offer. If the signage was clearer, it follows that the driver would have been aware that payment for a parking ticket was required despite it being after 2pm.

A comparison of the signage in place with that demonstrated in ParkingEye v Beavis (see Figure 10 and Figure 11) shows that the Market Hall car park signage is not fit for purpose.

 

Figure 11. Signage from ParkingEye v Beavis (2015)

 

 

 

Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and PGL. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law, for a contract to be effective, the offer must be communicated clearly. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other party is without knowledge of the offer.

jozxyqk

(part 3)

3) No evidence of landowner authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As it is unclear whether this operator (PGL) has proprietary interest in the land, 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).

Section 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.