Premier Park Ltd Leckwith (Costco) POPLA appeal - help please

bongo_boy

The story so far:

25th Aug 2024 - vehicle parked in hashed area. Costco car park.
26th Aug 2024 - PCN issued - mailed to keeper. Included below:





Land owner appeal attempted - they could care less.

I missed the early payment 'offer' as only opened their letter on 9th Sept.

10th September 2024 - Premier Park Ltd Online appeal attempted - wording as below:

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle. If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it. If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. In file 1, a screenshot of dashcam footage demonstrating insufficient notices. Notices must be displayed at every entrance. However, notices are not displayed at every entrance. Should you disagree, include images taken on 25/08/2024 of every entrance sign in your reply."

I NB in a different thread Premier Park lost in court due to no entrance signs - hence I mentioned it in the above - I'll come back to this later.

24th September 2024 - Premier Park Ltd deny my appeal:



I note they extended by early payment 'offer', that had expired 7th Sept 2024 - to 8th Oct 2024.

I wish to appeal to POPLA. I will post my draft in the next thread response.

I believe the key points will be:

Insufficient signage
Land owner authorisation
Excessive charge (for a 'free' car park).

I welcome input on it please. I hope I've included sufficient detail thus far.

The draft I will post next is copied from various posts on here that appeared relevant.

bongo_boy

I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice (PCN) issued to vehicle [registration number] on [date of PCN]. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and dispute the charge for the following reasons.

1.        Insufficient Signage: The signage at the location was unclear and not prominent, failing to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. As a result, it was not possible to understand the parking terms.

2.        Lack of Contractual Authority: The parking company has not provided evidence of a valid contract with the landowner, which is required under section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

3.        No authority to issue charges: The parking operator doesn’t have the right to issue charges (lack of contract with landowner).

4.        Non-compliance with POFA 2012: (My understanding is PCN's are rarely compliant so added this).

 

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:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

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:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking+sign_001.jpg

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:

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

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

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''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:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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. 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.” 

The below linked video demonstrates that there is grossly insufficient signage, both at the entrance to the parking area and within the parking area. The video was taken Sept 22nd 2024, 11:17am.

https://youtube.com/shorts/EZo0NCKbg7s?feature=share

 In the case of  ? vs Premier ParkLtd, it was clear that there was inadequate signage to provide drivers the terms and conditions of parking. Judgement went against Premier Parking. 

*****IS SOMEONE ABLE TO HELP FIND THE CASE CITED HERE, PLEASE: **** https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6362625/premier-park-lose-in-court-capital-shopping-centre-leckwith-cardiff-west-next-to-cardiffcfc/p1

Further the below linked video demonstrates that from the parking location, again signage is near absent from view. Here the video performs a turning view and there is no clearly visible sign.

https://youtu.be/xlAxzqWTbJs

 ****(Am I able to link to videos, or should I take a series of screen shots?)****

 

The operator has submitted photographic evidence of the signage at this site; the photographic evidence of the 'specific parking terms signage' cannot be taken into consideration due to the poor quality of the image, and is not clear enough for me to establish the Terms and Conditions of the car park.

Further four photographic of the signage have also been submitted by the operator which have been taken at a distance and do not allow me to see sufficient detail of the terms and conditions that are displayed.

As such, it is impossible for me to determine what Terms and conditions are in place for this site.

The operator states that the appellant did not meet the terms and conditions at the site but as I am unable to establish what the terms and conditions were, I am unable to establish that the operator issued the parking charge notice correctly, therefore I must allow this appeal.

The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however as i have allowed the appeal on this basis i have not considered these.

Landowner Authority

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, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

• the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
• any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
• any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
• who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

• the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

 

 

It is on the above grounds I appeal this parking charge notice,

*post length cap met* 

Coupon-mad

Parking on hatched lines like that means this is unlikely to be won at POPLA and might be best ignored.  It's a PoFA worded PCN so I don't see a win unless the signs are terrible.

But don't pay, obviously.

bongo_boy

Thank you for being frank. Challenging signs may be my only option then.

Signs are poor and scarce. While they arguably do have signs at the entrances now, which they did not have previously, information is unclear. I need to return to take specific up close images, however these are shot I managed to capture from google street view.

 


Large font and clear - they are not. Thoughts?

Coupon-mad

I still wouldn't try POPLA. But no harm done if you do.

bongo_boy

@Coupon-mad

Thank you. In your earlier post you said "But don't pay, obviously."

Was that a tongue in cheek comment? (clarifying is all).

If I don't pay AND don't appeal - surely I'll end up needing to go to court - which i'd prefer to avoid, no?

Coupon-mad

No. It wasn't tongue in cheek. Nobody should pay private parking charges.  This is the whole ethos of this forum, certainly while the industry remains unregulated.

LDast

bongo_boy said:

@Coupon-mad

Thank you. In your earlier post you said "But don't pay, obviously."

Was that a tongue in cheek comment? (clarifying is all).

If I don't pay AND don't appeal - surely I'll end up needing to go to court - which i'd prefer to avoid, no?

Why would you want to avoid court? It is the ultimate independent appeals service. It is also where a case like this would most likely be ultimately won. Is it a fear of "court" out of ignorance of the procedures and processes from watching too much TV. It is not Rumple of the Bailey.

Just in case this were to ever get anywhere near a court hearing (most unlikely as it has a much higher chance of being discontinued), here is a short video of what would happen on the day of any hearing:

https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU

There is zero chance of a CCJ if that is what your imagination is running riot with.

bongo_boy

Hi @LDast,
Thank you for the input and details including the link.

Time is my barrier. I work very long hours and have already spent 3hours + researching how to appeal this, taking photos, returning to the site and taking video etc. Together, it's easier at this time in my life to pay £50 and walk away frustrated, than spend any more time reading info to make an appeal etc. That's how tired I am. I have fought before and won. I currently feel dead on my feet and can do without the stress.

Best,

LDast

I can understand the issue for you. However, you should appreciate the fact that by paying them, you become a part of the problem and marked as a "mug" by them for future extortion. These vermin rely on exactly the attitude you have highlighted to perpetuate their scam.

All the research has been done for you. It would require very little of your valuable time. We win 99% of the time. It also serves as a very valuable life lesson in how to protect your rights.

Of course it is your hard earned money and conscience that is at stake.

bongo_boy

Agreed.

For piece of mind and stress- this was paid.

Mugged.