Total car parks, 2 PCNs

Ab93

Perfect thank you

Ab93

Found it Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.

Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

I’ve also added if I could see the signs, I wouldn’t park somewhere where only means of payment was a QR code!

troublemaker22

Well done, Code of Practice paragraph 19.10!

With all due respect to @UncleThomasCobley, there is no mileage in the argument that the PCN must use the word "creditor." If, ignoring that point, the PCNs comply with POFA you might as well appeal as driver.

Please show us your draft appeal wording before submitting.  In case it's helpful, here's how I usually phrase a 19.10 argument:

I regularly parked at this location (the “car park”) between [                      ] and [                 ]. I chose to park there because it offered unconditional free parking to the public, there being no signage stating terms or conditions of parking or prohibiting or limiting parking in any way.

At some point, the operator seems to have taken control of the car park but it did not take any steps to notify regular users of any change in the previous arrangements. In particular, no signs were erected alerting motorists to the new arrangements.

As a member of the BPA AOS scheme, the operator is obliged to comply with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, section 19.10 of which reads as follows:-

19.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

The operator has plainly breached paragraph 19.10 of the BPA AOS Code of Practice and must for that reason cancel the PCN.

Ab93

Thanks troublemaker22 I actually almost word for word sent what you said with pictures attached, saying I have regularly used this car park as a nearby resident for a long period of time with no issues, obviously it has changed hands at some point but I was never aware or I wouldn’t of continued to park there, quoted 19.10 and said I believe they are in breach of this and although it could be argued my mistake should be penalised, a stronger argument can be made for the PPC breaching this and that any monies being pursued should not be pursued further. 

Also I wouldn’t even bother with a QR code if I’d of been able to actually see the signs, however lights are directly above so in darkness can’t even see the post they are attached to let alone the signage 

thanks for the reply I will keep you updated 

troublemaker22

What happened to showing us your draft before submitting?

If you'd done that, there would have been a race to see who'd be the first to tell you to remove your admission that " it could be argued my mistake should be penalised".  No it couldn't and, even if it could, you're not the one to promote the argument.

And @Coupon-mad would have been quick to correct "wouldn't of" and "I'd of" to "wouldn't have" and "I'd  have" but I think the bad grammar shows it to be your own work and not something you copied from the internet or got ChatGPT to write for you 

Ab93

Hi all hope you are well, 

I have received the reply from total car parks via POPLA and now have to write my response to their evidence. 

One of the points I made was that the signage cannot be seen in the dark ‘at the time the car would have been parked’ they dispute this by saying the pictures I’ve taken are at night and theirs are during the day so I should of been able to see them as the attendant did when they issued the PCN. Baffling I know. 

Obviously every other point they have made says they are right to the letter and I am wrong so any advice of what I should counter with other than the obvious detailing that they have actually not responded to how well their signs are visible in the dark and instead diverted attention to how I am incorrect in the day? 

Thanks in advance if you have any questions about anything else they have submitted I’ll be happy to try and find the answers to them in the pack. 

Thanks again 

Coupon-mad

Just do concise comments about what you've spotted.    You could literally put this as your comments:

One of the points I made was that the signage cannot be seen in the dark ‘at the time the car would have been parked’ they dispute this by saying the pictures I’ve taken are at night and theirs are during the day so I should of been able to see them as the attendant did when they issued the PCN. Baffling I know. 

Ab93

Thanks coupon mad I’ll have a flick through the pack and see if there is anything else they have plainly ignored 

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Just do concise comments about what you've spotted.    You could literally put this as your comments:

One of the points I made was that the signage cannot be seen in the dark ‘at the time the car would have been parked’ they dispute this by saying the pictures I’ve taken are at night and theirs are during the day so I should of should have been able to see them as the attendant did when they issued the PCN. Baffling I know.        

But do correct this horrible grammar!

Ab93

Hi guys I didn’t post my draft before submitting last time so thought I would this time to see what you all think, any comments welcome thanks again,

I would like to highlight total car parks response to my evidence and both have been copied below. 

“I will attach photos I have taken which would have been taken at the same time of the car being parked.

The lighting surrounding the ‘clear’ signage makes it very difficult to see there are any changes to, if any, signs at all, arguably intentionally.” 

- The photos the Appellant have provided are at night, his vehicle was observed by the car park attendant in the day time, so the Appellant is incorrect in saying that the photos he provided are the same ones which the attendant captured, the attendants photos can be found in Section E, pages X to X. As explained, the Appellants vehicle was observed contravening the terms and conditions during day time, so the signs throughout the car park would have been visible to him at the time, as shown in Section B, pages 11 to 39, as well as the BPA entry sign at the entrance to the car park clearly explaining that the site is Private Land and that terms and conditions of parking apply (Section B, pages 11 to 12). In any case, the Appellants photos he provided actually show that there is sufficient lighting in the car park that illuminate the signage, as our signs are made of a reflective material.

One of the main points I made was that the signage cannot be seen in the dark ‘at the time the car would have been parked’ they dispute this by saying the pictures I’ve taken are at night and theirs are during the day so I should have been able to see them as the attendant did when they issued the PCN. Baffling I know.

The photos that total car parks have provided show their signage from roughly 1-2ft away in daylight so are obviously visible, the photos I provided are real time photos at night from the road adjacent to the car park which is the only entry point, and also at the entrance to and within the car park which I have used to try and portray any real drivers view.

It would seem the point I made has been blatantly disregarded, and rather than acknowledge my claim, they have distracted back to their own ideas, at no point did I claim that the photos taken were at the same time as the attendant’s, and proceed to claim how they have followed the BPA CoP instead of looking at the actual photographic evidence to the contrary. 

I would also like to highlight this point which total car parks admitted themselves: 

the Appellants photos he provided actually show that there is sufficient lighting in the car park that illuminate the signage, as our signs are made of a reflective material.

I’m sure the signs weren’t installed at night in the dark to test this, if they were, the signs would look like they do as I have pictured. And I’m sure in theory that was a good idea, however, again, in practice the result is the signage appears as I have pictured, arguably intentionally. 

I would also like to raise a point in which I will quote total car parks in stating as fact: 

– It is not possible for us to install any extra signs, as there were no signs in place at the car park prior to when we began to manage the car park on Nth October 2023. 

Again, as at least one of my photos would show, there is ample opportunity for extra signage, namely the picture I provided that would show the drivers point of view from the parked vehicle. And I would like to question is this statement true? Is it really impossible to install any more signs? Or have the ones put up just been strategically placed? 

Thank you