Euro Car Parks PCN POPLA appeal advice

talktofrank1990

Hi, firstly thank you so much to everyone that has contributed to the wealth of information on this forum.

I have had my appeal to ECP rejected by a generic letter, not responding to any of my points. I have now written my appeal to POPLA and was wondering if someone could cast a quick eye of it.

The driver overstayed in a ECP ANPR carpark by 10 mins. ECP issued a compliant NTK 7 days later My main point is BPA code stipulates a 10minute grace period which has not been applied, the others are mainly so I don't rely on just a single point.

Alleged overstay incident 20/07/2023

No PCN received

NTK letter dated 27/07/23 received by post.:

POPLA Verification Code:

[REDACTED]

Vehicle Registration:

[REDACTED]

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated  27/07/23, acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Euro Car Parks – was submitted and subsequently rejected via an email dated 24/08/2023.

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. No period of grace given for the driver.

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

3. 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.

4. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

5. Photo Evidence Open to Being Doctored

6. Euro Car Parks have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable.

 1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park.

The parking session on the Notice to Keeper is not established by the ‘Entry Time’ and ‘Exit Time’ provided, since the photos do not show where the vehicle is in relation to the car park boundary, and for how long the vehicle remained there.

 

However, the ‘Time in Car Park’ is listed as 1 hr 10 min, a 10 minute overstay. This overstay is within the BPA Code of practice (13.2) which states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “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.”

There is no evidence that Euro Car Parks have upheld the minimum grace periods as set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded their stipulated period by the time within the BPA code of practice.

The BPA's Code of Practice states (13) there must be a minimum of 10 minutes grace period.

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), this would be considered as a parking event

and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added

to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.

This is also reinforced by section 30.2 in relation to ANPR sites:

30.2 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.

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."

Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes': "Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period."

The recommendation reads: "Reword Clause 13.4 to '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 11 minutes."

This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account - certainly an allegation of 10 minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

If the BPA feel "a minimum of 10 minutes" is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, pay and then also have time to leave the car park at the end of the stay.

It is therefore argued that the overstay of the visit in question (which NCP claim was 10 minutes) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

a) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.

b) The failure to make signs visible from the carpark entrance and the parking spaces (which they are not) and legible once located. The signs must also be legible without needing to exit the vehicle, which they are not. See attached pictures.

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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then 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 CoP) 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).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP 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.

talktofrank1990

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

3. 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

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

Neither the Notice to Keeper nor appeal rejection from Euro Car Parks contain any photographic or any other evidence in support of Euro Car Parks request for payment.

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 when viewed from a vehicle.It should be noted that at entrance sign 

“The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers

without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any

text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle

can be of a much smaller size”

As you can see from the attached photos of the entrance parking sign it is not legible for drivers entering the car park from the left.


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:

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:

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 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:

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 judgment 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.

4. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside the car park.

It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.
In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: 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.

and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.


5. Photo Evidence Open to Being Doctored

I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time and location) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge ECP to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.).


6. Euro Car Parks have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable.

The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

Euro Car Parks has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point.

1505grandad

You should be using/quoting BPA CoP v8 dated January 2020 (latest so far published) where the paras quote different wording etc.

Coupon-mad

Remove 5 and 6  (not useful, very old) and change the "I, the keeper" clunky intro because it's horrible (we know it came from someone else and we hate it!).

Also this date/timeline makes no sense and also repeats 'years ago':

"Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015,"

talktofrank1990

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 5 and 6  (not useful, very old) and change the "I, the keeper" clunky intro because it's horrible (we know it came from someone else and we hate it!).

Also this date/timeline makes no sense and also repeats 'years ago':

"Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015,"

Haha re the cribbed into will change it. Thanks a lot for your advice!

talktofrank1990

Hi folks, Just updating the thread, I recieved this from POPLA today:

_______________________________________

Dear xxxxxx,

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

_______________________________________

Result. Thanks for your advice.

talktofrank1990

Here was the successful appeal:

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, wish to appeal the parking charge issued by Euro Car Parks, as notified in the letter dated xxxxxxx. Despite my initial appeal being rejected on xxxxxxxx, I maintain that I am not liable for the charge for the following reasons:

1. No grace period was granted to the driver, as required by the BPA Code of Practice sections 13.2 and 13.4, which mandate a minimum 10-minute grace period both to decide on staying and after the parking period ends.

2. The operator has not provided proof of Landowner Authority, a necessary compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

3. The car park's signs are neither sufficiently prominent nor clear, lacking proper indication of the parking charge sum.

I am contesting the mentioned 10-minute overstay charge, as it falls within the reasonable grace period outlined by the BPA Code of Practice, making the charge non-compliant with the code and should consequently be revoked.

This stance is supported by section 30.2 of the code concerning ANPR sites, which dictates a minimum 10-minute grace period post the parking event before any enforcement action can be taken. Moreover, Kelvin Reynolds from the BPA emphasizes that the time allocated for drivers to read the signs and decide to adhere to the parking terms should be flexible, considering factors like disabilities which might necessitate more time.

Historically, during a meeting on 30th July 2015, the Professional Development & Standards Board agreed to adjust clause 13.4 in the BPA Code of Practice to denote an 11-minute grace period, in alignment with DfT guidelines, endorsing a unified standard and acknowledging that any duration less than 10 minutes (like the case in point) is reasonable.

Given the BPA acknowledges a minimum 10-minute grace period for exiting a car park, it logically extends to the time required to enter the car park, identify and comprehend the terms and conditions, complete the payment process, and then exit the premises post the stay.

Therefore, the 10-minute overstay claimed by NCP is also unreasonable due to:

a) Insufficient signage in the car park, violating BPA Code of Practice 18.3, which naturally prolongs the time needed to find and understand the signs before agreeing to a contract. b) The inadequacy of sign visibility from both the entrance and parking spots, and their illegibility without leaving the vehicle, as evidenced by the attached pictures.

1. The operator hasn't shown any evidence of having Landowner Authority, which is necessary for full adherence to the BPA Code of Practice.

In this context, I request that the operator present an uncensored version of the contract with the landowner. This contract, alongside any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' illustrating details such as 'genuine customer' or 'resident' exemptions or any 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights sanctioned by site occupiers, is crucial in delineating the extent of the operator's authorization and the situations where the landowner or firms on site have the power to nullify a charge. It should not be presumed that the agent, assigned merely to install signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, possesses the authority to enter into contracts with all categories of drivers visiting the site or to enforce charges in court under their name - a jurisdiction generally reserved for the landowner.

I argue that witness statements cannot be considered reliable evidence for the aforementioned reasons since they tend to be pre-signed, generic documents that often fail to specify the case at hand or the site regulations. Even though POPLA might accept witness statements in some instances, in this case, it's unlikely to adequately demonstrate the services outlined in the agreement by each party.

Moreover, such statements do not disclose crucial information like charging schedules, possible exemption clauses, grace periods (which might exceed the minimum durations outlined in the BPA CoP), and fundamental details such as the exact land boundary and specific bays subject to enforcement. They also lack confirmation of the various restrictions approved by the landowner that can incur a charge and the actual amount the landowner permits this agent to levy (which cannot be presumed to be the figure noted in small print on a sign since standardized private parking terms and amounts may vary from the authentic landowner agreement).

I insist that the operator meets the compulsory stipulations mentioned in Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP, which mandates the operator to present substantial proof of:

7.2 Obtaining the landowner's (or their designated agent's) written consent before initiating any legal action concerning unpaid parking charges.

7.3 The written approval should explicitly illustrate:

a. A clear delineation of the land where operations are permitted.

b. Any conditions or limitations imposed on parking control and enforcement, including restrictions on operational hours.

c. Specific conditions or restrictions concerning the kinds of vehicles subject to, or exempt from, parking control and enforcement.

d. Identification of the entity responsible for installing and maintaining signs.

e. A precise description of the services each party agrees to in the contract.

3. 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

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

Neither the Notice to Keeper nor appeal rejection from Euro Car Parks contain any photographic or any other evidence in support of Euro Car Parks request for payment.

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 when viewed from a vehicle.It should be noted that at entrance sign 

“The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers

without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any

text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle

can be of a much smaller size”

As you can see from the attached photos of the entrance parking sign it is not legible for drivers entering the car park from the left.


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:

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:

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 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:

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 judgment 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.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point.