We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Need POPLA response by 21st Jan - PCN Elite Parking Tower Hamlets
jordylass
Posts: 1,109 Forumite
A friend got a parking ticket while helping me move house and as he's not one to fight it, I wanted to try to help. I used the newbies thread and other threads and summitted the below to POPLA appeals.
This is Elite's redacted evidence, which has the NTK in it.
https://imgur.com/a/V9uxItz
They argue the Beavis sign comparison isn't applicable as it was for a pay and display car park. Their included photos of their signs are not the same as what is on site, and even in their evidence you can see they are impossible to read without photographing and blowing up.
Really appreciate any response I should give to POPLA
I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Elite Car Parking Management on the grounds of inadequate signage, lack of grace period, improper ticketing method, and potential non-compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
1. Inapplicability of Grace Period Clauses:
The PCN cites a single contravention at a specific time, implying a breach of a "parking contract." However, the BPA Code of Practice regarding grace periods (specifically clauses 13.2 and 13.4) is intended for situations where a driver consciously enters into a contractual agreement with the parking operator. In this instance, I was legally parked in a marked bay on a public street, not within a defined car park where such a contract would be established.
2. Inadequate Signage and Lack of Reasonable Opportunity:
The BPA Code of Practice emphasises providing drivers with a reasonable opportunity to understand parking restrictions and make informed decisions. However, Elite Car Parking Management failed to fulfil this obligation due to the following significant shortcomings in signage:
(a) Excessively High and Illegible Signage:
Entrance signs are absent from the street and not visible from the parking bays. I only discovered them later, positioned excessively high with tiny fonts. Reading these terms requires extensive effort, like photographing and zooming, effectively negating any potential grace period.
ParkingEye v Beavis established that the penalty law is in play for parking charges and that a charge of £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It would not be a penalty or unfair consumer contract however if the charge was clearly brought to the attention of the motorist. In the Beavis case this was achieved by the £85 charge being in the largest font on the sign and in contrasting colours.
I submit a copy for comparison.
Figure 1. Beavis Sign Figure 2. Elite Parking Management SIgn
In contrast the £100 charge here is buried in the small print. As ParkingEye v Beavis is binding case law I submit the charge must be found to be either a penalty or an unfair consumer charge. I refer to the following paragraphs of the judgement to support this.
Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”
Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”
Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”
Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness allows the court to address considerations other than the size of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.
(b) Confusing and Contradictory Information:
The presence of multiple parking companies' logos and information, including references to OpenParking.co.uk alongside Elite Car Parking Management, creates a misleading and confusing environment. This raises concerns about legitimacy and compliance, hindering informed decision-making within a reasonable timeframe.
(c) Lack of Transparency Regarding Enforcement Methods:
The omission of any mention of ANPR on the signage constitutes a lack of transparency regarding enforcement methods. Drivers have a right to be informed about such practices.
(d) Incapable of Forming a Legally Binding Contract:
Due to the aforementioned shortcomings, the signage fails to meet the standards set in the Beavis case. This renders it incapable of forming a legally binding contract. Therefore, no contract exists with the driver to pay the demanded amount, and any additional punitive charges are invalid.
3. Lack of Clarity Regarding Landowner's Permission and Legal Standing:
The PCN fails to provide any clarity regarding the landowner's permission for Elite Car Parking Management to enforce parking restrictions on this public street. Additionally, there is no information about the legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management to act on behalf of the landowner in issuing PCNs.
4. Conclusion:
In light of the aforementioned issues, I respectfully request that the POPLA adjudicator overturn this PCN. The combination of factors, including:
Inapplicability of grace period clauses due to the absence of a parking contract.
Inadequate signage, lack of transparency, and a lack of reasonable opportunity to comprehend parking restrictions.
Unclear landowner permission and legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management.
warrant a thorough review of the PCN's validity. I am confident that a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence will support the overturning of this unfair charge.
This is Elite's redacted evidence, which has the NTK in it.
https://imgur.com/a/V9uxItz
They argue the Beavis sign comparison isn't applicable as it was for a pay and display car park. Their included photos of their signs are not the same as what is on site, and even in their evidence you can see they are impossible to read without photographing and blowing up.
Really appreciate any response I should give to POPLA
I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Elite Car Parking Management on the grounds of inadequate signage, lack of grace period, improper ticketing method, and potential non-compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
1. Inapplicability of Grace Period Clauses:
The PCN cites a single contravention at a specific time, implying a breach of a "parking contract." However, the BPA Code of Practice regarding grace periods (specifically clauses 13.2 and 13.4) is intended for situations where a driver consciously enters into a contractual agreement with the parking operator. In this instance, I was legally parked in a marked bay on a public street, not within a defined car park where such a contract would be established.
2. Inadequate Signage and Lack of Reasonable Opportunity:
The BPA Code of Practice emphasises providing drivers with a reasonable opportunity to understand parking restrictions and make informed decisions. However, Elite Car Parking Management failed to fulfil this obligation due to the following significant shortcomings in signage:
(a) Excessively High and Illegible Signage:
Entrance signs are absent from the street and not visible from the parking bays. I only discovered them later, positioned excessively high with tiny fonts. Reading these terms requires extensive effort, like photographing and zooming, effectively negating any potential grace period.
ParkingEye v Beavis established that the penalty law is in play for parking charges and that a charge of £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It would not be a penalty or unfair consumer contract however if the charge was clearly brought to the attention of the motorist. In the Beavis case this was achieved by the £85 charge being in the largest font on the sign and in contrasting colours.
I submit a copy for comparison.
Figure 1. Beavis Sign Figure 2. Elite Parking Management SIgn
In contrast the £100 charge here is buried in the small print. As ParkingEye v Beavis is binding case law I submit the charge must be found to be either a penalty or an unfair consumer charge. I refer to the following paragraphs of the judgement to support this.
Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”
Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”
Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”
Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness allows the court to address considerations other than the size of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.
(b) Confusing and Contradictory Information:
The presence of multiple parking companies' logos and information, including references to OpenParking.co.uk alongside Elite Car Parking Management, creates a misleading and confusing environment. This raises concerns about legitimacy and compliance, hindering informed decision-making within a reasonable timeframe.
(c) Lack of Transparency Regarding Enforcement Methods:
The omission of any mention of ANPR on the signage constitutes a lack of transparency regarding enforcement methods. Drivers have a right to be informed about such practices.
(d) Incapable of Forming a Legally Binding Contract:
Due to the aforementioned shortcomings, the signage fails to meet the standards set in the Beavis case. This renders it incapable of forming a legally binding contract. Therefore, no contract exists with the driver to pay the demanded amount, and any additional punitive charges are invalid.
3. Lack of Clarity Regarding Landowner's Permission and Legal Standing:
The PCN fails to provide any clarity regarding the landowner's permission for Elite Car Parking Management to enforce parking restrictions on this public street. Additionally, there is no information about the legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management to act on behalf of the landowner in issuing PCNs.
4. Conclusion:
In light of the aforementioned issues, I respectfully request that the POPLA adjudicator overturn this PCN. The combination of factors, including:
Inapplicability of grace period clauses due to the absence of a parking contract.
Inadequate signage, lack of transparency, and a lack of reasonable opportunity to comprehend parking restrictions.
Unclear landowner permission and legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management.
warrant a thorough review of the PCN's validity. I am confident that a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence will support the overturning of this unfair charge.
There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
0
Comments
-
Is this OK for my comment response
Elite Parking's evidence includes photos of signage they claim are present at the location. However, these photos do not accurately reflect the actual signage situation. Specifically:
The sign marked left on entering the street in their photos is entirely absent in reality. This raises concern about the completeness and accuracy of their signage strategy.
Their photos fail to show any signs visible from the specific bay where my vehicle was parked. This lack of readily visible signage in the immediate vicinity of the parking space significantly weakens their case.
The signage in their photos differs significantly from the actual appearance and placement of the signs on-site. This discrepancy casts doubt on the reliability of their evidence and the overall effectiveness of their signage strategy.
The inconsistent, ambiguous, and potentially misleading nature of the signage creates an unfair and confusing situation for drivers
Based on the discrepancies and flaws in Elite Parking's evidence and signage strategy, I respectfully request that POPLA overturn the issued PCN. The lack of clear, prominent, and consistent signage renders the parking restrictions unenforceable in this instance. I was not adequately informed of the regulations, and it is unfair to penalise me for navigating misleading and confusing information.
There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.0 -
You have a lot of repetition!1
-
If you’re appealing as driver and not relying on a failure by the operator to engage POFA to transfer liability to you as keeper, that looks fine. If you’re appealing as keeper on the basis that the NTK was not POFA-compliant, you should change the last sentence to refer to “the driver” rather than “I” and “me”.2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards