Popla appeal PCN premier park BB not displayed

confusedannie

2. 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

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. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

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:

LINK

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:

LINK

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:

LINK

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

LINK

''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:

LINK

''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:

LINK

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.

 

3. 

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

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

 

confusedannie

4.

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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, andthe boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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.

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 

Fruitcake

This is still wrong,

From the photos attached and taken by the Premier Park operative, I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative did not make made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

Also, that the operative did not make made a thorough search of the vehicle



You want them to prove that they did properly search the front of the car, did not take photos from obscure angles, and did not dislodge the blue badge.

I suggest you also add the comments I made in my previous post about where the disabled passengers sat which is why the badge was displayed on the passenger side etcetera. Put them to proof that a blue badge was not displayed on the front passenger dashboard since the operator has not shown clear images of this part of the front windscreen.

confusedannie

Thank you fruitcake, here's another try of that bit.....

1.    The parking terms and conditions have not been breached.

 

The disabled occupants of the car suffer complex disability needs, has sever panic attacks and severe mobility issues needing assistance from another person.

The valid disabled badge was clearly displayed.

The occupant of the car was/is disabled and holds a valid disabled badge. 

Premier park was informed of this in the first appeal.

A photograph of the disabled occupant’s valid Blue badge was included in the Premier Park appeal as evidence.

(Breach of Equality Act 2010 - Failure to make reasonable adjustments before and after they were made aware an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics = criminal offence.

Service providers are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Service providers are also required by law to anticipate the needs of disabled motorists. This should include a motorist forgetting to display a BB, or the badge being dislodged by external forces. Failing to make such reasonable adjustments is indirect discrimination.

Once the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge became direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

Premier Park the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge becomes direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

From the photos attached and taken by the Premier Park operative, I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

Also, that the operative made a thorough search of the vehicle

It is also clear to see in the photos that there is a large amount of deep puddles scattered around the car park from the wind and heavy rainfall on that day.

None of the photos the operative took have a time or date stamp date. I put the operator to strict proof they were taken at the material time at the material location.

The photos the operative took were from the far rear of the car showing the back of the car from a distance. 

The front of the car showing the roof and the windscreen which was shadowed, shady and misty due the weather conditions on the day. 

The photos the operative took, also only show only one side view of the front of the car, this being the driver’s front side window. This particular photo appears to be taken at an odd angle, that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

It is obscured by shadows and has external images in it. The photo does not give a clear and true representation of the blue badge being displayed. 

The photos have been taken from an odd angle that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

There are no photos showing the front passenger side of the car or through the window which would, if the operative had taken them, clearly show the blue badge clearly on display.

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that a blue badge was not displayed on the front passenger dashboard since the operator has not shown clear images of this part of the front windscreen.

The blue badge holder was a front seat passenger, therefore it is logical that they placed their blue badge on the passenger side of the dashboard. 

The signs says that a valid blue badge "must be displayed in the windscreen area," yet the parking attendant has deliberately not provided photos of the whole of the windscreen area, by omitting images of the passenger side where the badge was located. 

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the operative made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display. 

The parking operative’s photos are taken at odd angles. 

No breach of parking terms - Blue Badge was displayed

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn't deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display. 

I Put the PPC to strict proof that it was not their operative who dislodged the BB during the observation and ticketing process. 

I believe it is much more likely that the badge was dislodged by wind rocking the car or by a person or persons unknown bouncing up and down with malice aforethought. 

Further, Premier Park are not the landowners and have No standing to issue charges in their own name. I Put the Premier Park PPC to strict proof that the contrary is true.

confusedannie

I just noticed the photos ARE date and Time stamped.

Fruitcake

Okay, remove that bit then. I would also remove, 

I believe it is much more likely that the badge was dislodged by wind rocking the car or by a person or persons unknown bouncing up and down with malice aforethought. 

It was meant more to get the idea out of your head that the lack of badge was caused by the passenger.

I don't think the comment about the puddles etcetera is of any help either, but then again, it does no harm.

confusedannie

Thank you fruitcake, this has been amended.

Do I leave in, or take out number 5. Or include it somewhere, I'm not sure what it refers to?

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,


Subject: Parking charge reference number: XXXXXXXXXX, Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from Premier Park on the following points:

 

I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Premier Park in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at Stanley Green Retail Park Earl Road, Cheadle Hulme SK8 6PT on 13th October 2023 at 14:10

I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1. The parking terms and conditions have not been breached.

Breach of Equality Act 2010 - Failure to make reasonable adjustments before and after they were made aware an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics.

2. 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.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

5. Failure to comply with the data protection …..(NOT SURE WHAT THIS COMES UNDER)…PLEASE ADVISE ??

The details on above points are as listed below:-

1.    The parking terms and conditions have not been breached.

The disabled occupants of the car suffer complex disability needs, has sever panic attacks and severe mobility issues needing assistance from another person.

The valid disabled badge was clearly displayed.

The occupant of the car was/is disabled and holds a valid disabled badge. 

Premier park was informed of this in the first appeal.

A photograph of the disabled occupant’s valid Blue badge was included in the Premier Park appeal as evidence.

(Breach of Equality Act 2010 - Failure to make reasonable adjustments before and after they were made aware an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics = criminal offence.

Service providers are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Service providers are also required by law to anticipate the needs of disabled motorists. This should include a motorist forgetting to display a BB, or the badge being dislodged by external forces. Failing to make such reasonable adjustments is indirect discrimination.

Once the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge became direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

Premier Park the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge becomes direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

From the photos attached and taken by the Premier Park operative, I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

Also, that the operative made a thorough search of the vehicle

It is also clear to see in the photos that there is a large amount of deep puddles scattered around the car park from the wind and heavy rainfall on that day.

The photos the operative took were from the far rear of the car showing the back of the car from a distance. 

The front of the car showing the roof and the windscreen which was shadowed, shady and misty due the weather conditions on the day. 

The photos the operative took, also only show only one side view of the front of the car, this being the driver’s front side window. This particular photo appears to be taken at an odd angle, that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

It is obscured by shadows and has external images in it. The photo does not give a clear and true representation of the blue badge being displayed. 

The photos have been taken from an odd angle that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

There are no photos showing the front passenger side of the car or through the window which would, if the operative had taken them, clearly show the blue badge clearly on display.

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that a blue badge was not displayed on the front passenger dashboard since the operator has not shown clear images of this part of the front windscreen.

The blue badge holder was a front seat passenger, therefore it is logical that they placed their blue badge on the passenger side of the dashboard. 

The signs says that a valid blue badge "must be displayed in the windscreen area," yet the parking attendant has deliberately not provided photos of the whole of the windscreen area, by omitting images of the passenger side where the badge was located. 

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the operative made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display. 

The parking operative’s photos are taken at odd angles. 

No breach of parking terms - Blue Badge was displayed

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn't deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display. 

I put the PPC to strict proof that it was not their operative who dislodged the BB during the observation and ticketing process. 

Further, Premier Park are not the landowners and have No standing to issue charges in their own name. I Put the Premier Park PPC to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Fruitcake

For para 5, refer to the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2015 and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) 2018.

In the body of the appeal point itself, state that since no breach of the parking contract occurred (the operator has produced no proof to demonstrate that a blue badge was not displayed on the front passenger dashboard/windscreen area), the operator had no right to obtain and process my personal data from the DVLA. This is a clear breach of the DPA 2015 and GDPR 2018.

confusedannie

is this ok for para 5?....

5. Failure to comply with the data protection

I refer to the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2015 and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) 2018.

Since no breach of the parking contract occurred (the operator has produced no proof to demonstrate that a blue badge was not displayed on the front passenger dashboard/windscreen area), the operator had no right to obtain and process my personal data from the DVLA. This is a clear breach of the DPA 2015 and GDPR 2018.

 

GrannyKate

DPA 2018 and UK GDPR