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).
POPLA Response - Tesco Reading Horizon Parking fine (PCN issued 20th of March)
sothyjooce
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi all,
Tesco Reading on Napier Road apparently reduce their parking time from 3 hours to only 1.5 hours starting from 8pm (even though we did a £200+ shop and the shop closes at midnight). We tried plan A) and the branch manager scanned the PCN and asked them to cancel, but he said no guarantees they will honour it. Thus after waiting a while, I moved to Plan
:- appealed to Horizon with the verbatim around non-compliant NtK and refused to share driver details, but that failed. Afterwards, appealed vis POPLA and drafted a response identical to the one listed here:- Horizon 28 days error POPLA Appeal 2025 - Page 4 — MoneySavingExpert Forum.
However, they have responded with their POPLA appeal with the following:-
Regarding the signs, attaching photos of the Blue Entrance sign:-
And the Pink (Terms and Conditions):-
Google Maps of entrance to car park:-
My only arguments I can think of to respond with are:-
Any other suggestions here? Thanks!
Tesco Reading on Napier Road apparently reduce their parking time from 3 hours to only 1.5 hours starting from 8pm (even though we did a £200+ shop and the shop closes at midnight). We tried plan A) and the branch manager scanned the PCN and asked them to cancel, but he said no guarantees they will honour it. Thus after waiting a while, I moved to Plan
:- appealed to Horizon with the verbatim around non-compliant NtK and refused to share driver details, but that failed. Afterwards, appealed vis POPLA and drafted a response identical to the one listed here:- Horizon 28 days error POPLA Appeal 2025 - Page 4 — MoneySavingExpert Forum.However, they have responded with their POPLA appeal with the following:-
Review of your Appeal
The Parking Charge was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice issued by the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’).
There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking.
One of the terms and conditions is that vehicles must not exceed the maximum stay period allowed. As this vehicle was found to be parked longer than the maximum period allowed, a Parking Charge was correctly issued.
The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules and regulations. When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.
As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.
If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought or motorists will be issued with a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.
Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this occasion your appeal has been rejected.
Evidence to Support our claim,
Below is an image of the signage on site which states, “A Parking Charge of £70.00 may be issued in the following circumstances Exceeding the maximum stay”.
Because the vehicle was found to have been in the car park for a total of 02 hours and 11 minutes while the maximum stay period for the time frame when the vehicle was found in the car park is 1 hour and 30 minutes, the terms and conditions were breached meaning the Parking Charge was correctly issued.
In response to the appellant’s claim, regarding the POFA we had informed the appellant in the parking charge issued and also in the appeal response sent to them, “The Registered Keeper details of this vehicle have been requested from the DVLA through the reasonable cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding Parking Charge. As we (the creditor) do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver’s full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them. You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date of Issue), the amount due has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the notice from you. This Notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act. Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any amount that remains unpaid. Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we may pursue you for any amount that remains unpaid. Failure to pay the full amount of this Parking Charge within 28 days may result in the proceeding of debt recovery action and/or issuing court proceedings against you. Additional costs may be incurred.” “As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.”
In response to the appellant’s claim to POPLA regarding the POFA it has been responded as above. We note the appellant has not confirmed who the driver was on the date of the contravention. In response to this, this Parking Charge has been issued in full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and therefore, if the driver’s details are not provided, the registered keeper of the vehicle is held liable for the Parking Charge that has been issued to their vehicle.
In response to the appellant’s claim, we assert that since the date of the decision, we have ensured full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, including adherence to its specific timelines and procedural requirements.
In response to the appellant's claim regarding the Notice to Keeper (NTK) and the presumed "given" date, we maintain the following: The Notice to Keeper issued is fully compliant with POFA guidelines, ensuring that the 28-day period for the transfer of liability begins the day after the second working day following issuance(which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date of Issue).
The timeline stipulated in our correspondence aligns precisely with the requirements outlined in POFA. Consequently, there is no error in the calculation or application of the 28-day period. Given our strict adherence to POFA’s provisions, we firmly reject the appellant's argument that this constitutes an invalid attempt to transfer liability to the keeper. We are in full compliance with the legislation, and the processes followed meet all legal standards as per the POFA 2012 act.
In response to the appellant’s claim regarding the signage and appellant's reliance on comparisons with the Beavis case and other cited decisions is not relevant in this context, as the circumstances and signage in this case differ significantly. We maintain that there are sufficient and prominently displayed signs at the site to ensure that all motorists are made fully aware of the parking terms and conditions. The signage complies with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Code of Practice and provides clear and adequate notice of the parking charge and other terms. Signages are strategically placed throughout the car park, including at the entrance and in other visible locations, ensuring motorists are presented with the terms upon entering and while parking. The wording on the signage is legible and unambiguous, with clear contrast and appropriate font size to ensure readability. These terms are designed to provide adequate notice in line with POFA requirements. Motorists have the responsibility to familiarize themselves with the displayed terms upon entering private land and ensure compliance. By parking onsite, they implicitly agree to the stated terms. As such, in response to the appellant’s claim that the signage is insufficient or fails to meet the required standards we assert that the signage on-site offers adequate notice, and therefore, a valid contract was formed when the vehicle was parked in accordance with the stated terms and conditions.
In response to the Appellant’s comments regarding Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015] I also draw your attention to the landmark decision made by the Supreme Court in Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015]. The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.
The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both Parking Eye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of parking. The interest of Parking Eye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.
In response to the appellant’s claim regarding the Lack of Evidence of Landowner Authority we acknowledge the appellant's request for an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. However, due to the commercially sensitive nature of this document, we are unable to provide it. Sharing such information could compromise business confidentiality agreements and it is not necessary to validate the operator's authority. Instead, we have provided sufficient evidence in the form of witness statements confirming the operator's authorization to manage parking on the site, issue Parking Charges, and enforce the terms and conditions as displayed on signage. These witness statements meet the standards and are entirely relevant to this appeal. The operator is fully authorized to issue parking charges and enforce them. The witness statements provided clearly outline the scope of the operator's role and responsibilities. Furthermore, the signage on-site provides adequate notice to all motorists regarding the parking terms and conditions. We maintain that the evidence provided is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with legal and operational requirements, and as such, the appellant’s request for additional documentation is unwarranted.
There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park, that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking. As clearly stipulated on signage within the car park, all the terms and conditions must be adhered to by all the motorists. One of the terms and conditions is that vehicles must not exceed the maximum stay period allowed.
If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought, or motorists will be issued a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.
When entering a car park located on private land and choosing to remain on site, the motorist enters a valid contract and agreed to abide by the car park’s terms and conditions which are detailed on signs, which are on display at various points within the car park itself. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use and one of the conditions is that a £70.00 Parking Charge will be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.
When parking on private land, motorists have a responsibility to ensure they look out for the terms and conditions signs and read them to ensure they park in line with these terms and conditions. If at any time, a vehicle is found parked in breach of any of the terms and conditions, a Parking Charge is issued.
The appellant has entered into a contract with Horizon Parking when they entered the car park and chose to remain on site. By remaining on site, the appellant agreed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park in return for permission to park. By exceeding the maximum stay, the appellant has breached the contract they have entered into which means a Parking Charge has been correctly issued.
By entering this car park and choosing to remain on site, the Appellant has entered into a contract with Horizon Parking and has consented to comply with the terms and conditions set out on the signs in that car park which are clearly visible.
The car park contains ample signage within the car park setting out our terms and conditions. All drivers therefore have the opportunity to review the terms and conditions prior to entering into the contract with Horizon Parking.
It is the driver's responsibility when parking on private land to ensure they familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions on site via the signage, this ensures they are aware of the charge should they breach the terms and conditions on site.
By parking the vehicle on the site, the Appellant entered a valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use. One of the conditions is that a £70.00 Parking Charge will be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.
Our position remains that this Parking Charge was issued correctly. We maintain the Appellant entered a valid contract and should pay the valid parking charges as per the signage on the site.
The Parking Charge was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice issued by the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’).
There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking.
One of the terms and conditions is that vehicles must not exceed the maximum stay period allowed. As this vehicle was found to be parked longer than the maximum period allowed, a Parking Charge was correctly issued.
The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules and regulations. When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.
As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.
If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought or motorists will be issued with a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.
Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this occasion your appeal has been rejected.
Evidence to Support our claim,
Below is an image of the signage on site which states, “A Parking Charge of £70.00 may be issued in the following circumstances Exceeding the maximum stay”.
Because the vehicle was found to have been in the car park for a total of 02 hours and 11 minutes while the maximum stay period for the time frame when the vehicle was found in the car park is 1 hour and 30 minutes, the terms and conditions were breached meaning the Parking Charge was correctly issued.
In response to the appellant’s claim, regarding the POFA we had informed the appellant in the parking charge issued and also in the appeal response sent to them, “The Registered Keeper details of this vehicle have been requested from the DVLA through the reasonable cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding Parking Charge. As we (the creditor) do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver’s full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them. You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date of Issue), the amount due has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the notice from you. This Notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act. Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any amount that remains unpaid. Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we may pursue you for any amount that remains unpaid. Failure to pay the full amount of this Parking Charge within 28 days may result in the proceeding of debt recovery action and/or issuing court proceedings against you. Additional costs may be incurred.” “As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.”
In response to the appellant’s claim to POPLA regarding the POFA it has been responded as above. We note the appellant has not confirmed who the driver was on the date of the contravention. In response to this, this Parking Charge has been issued in full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and therefore, if the driver’s details are not provided, the registered keeper of the vehicle is held liable for the Parking Charge that has been issued to their vehicle.
In response to the appellant’s claim, we assert that since the date of the decision, we have ensured full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, including adherence to its specific timelines and procedural requirements.
In response to the appellant's claim regarding the Notice to Keeper (NTK) and the presumed "given" date, we maintain the following: The Notice to Keeper issued is fully compliant with POFA guidelines, ensuring that the 28-day period for the transfer of liability begins the day after the second working day following issuance(which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date of Issue).
The timeline stipulated in our correspondence aligns precisely with the requirements outlined in POFA. Consequently, there is no error in the calculation or application of the 28-day period. Given our strict adherence to POFA’s provisions, we firmly reject the appellant's argument that this constitutes an invalid attempt to transfer liability to the keeper. We are in full compliance with the legislation, and the processes followed meet all legal standards as per the POFA 2012 act.
In response to the appellant’s claim regarding the signage and appellant's reliance on comparisons with the Beavis case and other cited decisions is not relevant in this context, as the circumstances and signage in this case differ significantly. We maintain that there are sufficient and prominently displayed signs at the site to ensure that all motorists are made fully aware of the parking terms and conditions. The signage complies with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Code of Practice and provides clear and adequate notice of the parking charge and other terms. Signages are strategically placed throughout the car park, including at the entrance and in other visible locations, ensuring motorists are presented with the terms upon entering and while parking. The wording on the signage is legible and unambiguous, with clear contrast and appropriate font size to ensure readability. These terms are designed to provide adequate notice in line with POFA requirements. Motorists have the responsibility to familiarize themselves with the displayed terms upon entering private land and ensure compliance. By parking onsite, they implicitly agree to the stated terms. As such, in response to the appellant’s claim that the signage is insufficient or fails to meet the required standards we assert that the signage on-site offers adequate notice, and therefore, a valid contract was formed when the vehicle was parked in accordance with the stated terms and conditions.
In response to the Appellant’s comments regarding Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015] I also draw your attention to the landmark decision made by the Supreme Court in Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015]. The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.
The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both Parking Eye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of parking. The interest of Parking Eye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.
In response to the appellant’s claim regarding the Lack of Evidence of Landowner Authority we acknowledge the appellant's request for an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. However, due to the commercially sensitive nature of this document, we are unable to provide it. Sharing such information could compromise business confidentiality agreements and it is not necessary to validate the operator's authority. Instead, we have provided sufficient evidence in the form of witness statements confirming the operator's authorization to manage parking on the site, issue Parking Charges, and enforce the terms and conditions as displayed on signage. These witness statements meet the standards and are entirely relevant to this appeal. The operator is fully authorized to issue parking charges and enforce them. The witness statements provided clearly outline the scope of the operator's role and responsibilities. Furthermore, the signage on-site provides adequate notice to all motorists regarding the parking terms and conditions. We maintain that the evidence provided is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with legal and operational requirements, and as such, the appellant’s request for additional documentation is unwarranted.
There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park, that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking. As clearly stipulated on signage within the car park, all the terms and conditions must be adhered to by all the motorists. One of the terms and conditions is that vehicles must not exceed the maximum stay period allowed.
If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought, or motorists will be issued a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.
When entering a car park located on private land and choosing to remain on site, the motorist enters a valid contract and agreed to abide by the car park’s terms and conditions which are detailed on signs, which are on display at various points within the car park itself. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use and one of the conditions is that a £70.00 Parking Charge will be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.
When parking on private land, motorists have a responsibility to ensure they look out for the terms and conditions signs and read them to ensure they park in line with these terms and conditions. If at any time, a vehicle is found parked in breach of any of the terms and conditions, a Parking Charge is issued.
The appellant has entered into a contract with Horizon Parking when they entered the car park and chose to remain on site. By remaining on site, the appellant agreed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park in return for permission to park. By exceeding the maximum stay, the appellant has breached the contract they have entered into which means a Parking Charge has been correctly issued.
By entering this car park and choosing to remain on site, the Appellant has entered into a contract with Horizon Parking and has consented to comply with the terms and conditions set out on the signs in that car park which are clearly visible.
The car park contains ample signage within the car park setting out our terms and conditions. All drivers therefore have the opportunity to review the terms and conditions prior to entering into the contract with Horizon Parking.
It is the driver's responsibility when parking on private land to ensure they familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions on site via the signage, this ensures they are aware of the charge should they breach the terms and conditions on site.
By parking the vehicle on the site, the Appellant entered a valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use. One of the conditions is that a £70.00 Parking Charge will be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.
Our position remains that this Parking Charge was issued correctly. We maintain the Appellant entered a valid contract and should pay the valid parking charges as per the signage on the site.
Blue = entrance sign Pink = terms and condition signs Red = Privacy Policy signs
And the Pink (Terms and Conditions):-
Google Maps of entrance to car park:-
My only arguments I can think of to respond with are:-
- The "pink" sign located before going into the car park is located on the right-hand side of the road rather than left, making it less visible to drivers. In addition, the "blue" entrance sign to the left does not state the cost of violating the terms (only the pink signs do).
- Failed to provide land ownership which they refuse to due to "confidentiality".
Any other suggestions here? Thanks!
0
Comments
-
Depends if the wording on (the top back of) your NTK matches the non-POFA image or the new Feb 2025 POFA worded image as seen in my NTK pictures thread.
Please don't show us yours. It's easy to see the difference in the new wording.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
The legend coupon-mad herself! Yes unfortunately new wording (believe they’ve adopted it for a while now as per your previous observations).Coupon-mad said:Depends if the wording on (the top back of) your NTK matches the non-POFA image or the new Feb 2025 POFA worded image as seen in my NTK pictures thread.
Please don't show us yours. It's easy to see the difference in the new wording.Wording:-You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date of Issue), the amount due has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the notice from you. This Notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.
Would be keen to hear your thoughts on my arguments above and whether they have any legs to stand on, or if I’m out of luck.
Thanks!0 -
What exactly do the 6 conditions say under the £70 line?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
The signs are NOT clear especially drining past where yellow lines stop you stopping to read them.
I know the site although I will never shop at Tesco after they tried to scam me in the past using Horizon
I am interested to see the other signs so tomorrow I have a look around.
You are clearly local and your local court is Reading. The Judges are not keen on the parking scams and call it a regime
If it gets to a court claim come back here
POPLA is rubbish, just another BPA joke to protect their members
For POPLA to refer to the Supreme Court cae just shows how ignorant they are
The case was about a parking charge NOT .... a chage in the hours ???? STUPID POOPLA and stupid BPA for being so ignorant
DO NOT PAY THE MONEY SCAMMERS, see what happens next1 -
Sounds like an unfair term anyway
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62
Consider the car in the car park didn't attract a charge, but the trolley did instead. If the trolley had a timer, the brakes locked mid-shop and a £60 invoice spewed out of the handle, would it be a fair term, considering you were intending to purchase and were surrounded by thousands of invitations to treat?2 -
Those (purposely) confusing Tesco/Horizon signs are now littering Tesco car parks all over the country. Many different time variations but common failures...Never seen a site yet that notified the material change of the introduction of new restrictions with additional entrance (temporary) signage for at least 4 months as required by section 3.4 of the joint BPA/IPC joke code. (In section 3.4, the code specifically lists as one example of a material change the reduction of a free-parking time limit.);Failure to use a font size clearly readable given the height of the sign as required by 3.1.3(f);I travel quite a lot and am turning into a bit of a Tesco/Horizon sign spotter (sigh). Every single site has multiple failures. (I don't shop there anymore, of course, after they tried this scam on me.) Good luck..
Failure to clearly state the duration of permitted free parking as required by 3.1.3(h). What happens if you cross a time-boundary? - it's totally unclear. And I bet the customer service desk don't know - I often ask for a bit of fun and usually get replies stating the old duration (I guess staff cars are whitelisted so they don't read or care about the new restrictions.) NB: Did you arrive before 2000 by any chance and cross the boundary from 3 hours into 1.5 hours?;
Failure to state that the level of parking charge (£70) in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign as required by 3.1.4;
Failure to ensure the signs are “conspicuous and legible” in all lighting conditions at the height displayed as required by section 3.1.6. Given the date and time you describe, I'm guessing it was dark? I bet many lights weren't working and from the photo that entrance sign looks unlit and covered overhead by a tree - therefore failure to ensure readability in as required by section 3.1.2(f), and annex A3.2 (and advised by note 1 of section 3.1.2);
Failure to place sign so it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead as required by annex A2.2;
That entrance sign conflicts with the other signs as one mentions store opening times and the other lists specific times. Opening times are 1000-1600 on a Sunday which conflicts with the specified times on the other signs.
(Not related to your issue but I see they have sneaked the Customer Only Parking 'condition' in - not all sites have that one..)
All these Tesco/Horizon signs fundamentally fail to explain maximum stay restrictions clearly. The most prominent top line does state: “Maximum stay between 6am – 8pm 3 hours”. A driver on a Sunday evening at, for example, 5pm is lured into believing there is a 3-hour maximum stay. Given an entrance sign is intended to be read from a moving vehicle (without the driver needing to look away from the road ahead), most drivers will be unable to read further. Were a driver able to read down to the third set of criteria an additional Sunday-only condition is revealed. And given the conflict between the entrance sign and the car park sign they might have (possibly) 1h15minutes - or just 15minutes!
5 -
Just drove there this evening (which is when I was fined). Notice how the signs are hard to notice and read during night time (my camera didn’t do justice given it auto-brighten the pictures; but I had to stop the car and get out in order to even try to make out what it says).Coupon-mad said:What exactly do the 6 conditions say under the £70 line?
0 -
Thank you Car1980 and and Switcher_Sam for the commentary and insights! I am relieved I’m not the only one who thinks their car park is completely unfair. Like why restrict it from 3 to 1.5 hours from 8pm when the store closes at midnight?? The more I think about it, the more I think about how much of a scam this is. If it wasn’t, the very least they can do is start charging on an hourly basis or something vs hey here’s a £70 “fine”. Makes you paranoid parking your car anywhere nowadays. Too twisted for my liking.4
-
I agree it does make you paranoid parking your car anywhere these days with so many car park operators trying to scam you.
You must tell your MP this, get them to ask when the Govt will regulate the PP industry and put a stop to their well-known 'rip-off' practices.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6593026/letter-to-your-mp
And please support the parking petitions
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6595460/parking-petitions-x-7-on-uk-parliament-petitions-website3 -
Thank you for sharing these links - I will action this accordingly.Nellymoser said:I agree it does make you paranoid parking your car anywhere these days with so many car park operators trying to scam you.
You must tell your MP this, get them to ask when the Govt will regulate the PP industry and put a stop to their well-known 'rip-off' practices.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6593026/letter-to-your-mp
And please support the parking petitions
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6595460/parking-petitions-x-7-on-uk-parliament-petitions-website
In the meantime I wanted to update everyone on the progress. Although the branch manager requested for it to be cancelled which clearly failed, I also reverted back to plan A) by contacting Tesco Customer Service (again) whilst preparing my response back to POPLA. This time it was a success as the PCN now shows as cancelled.I would like to sincerely thank everyone for your time and dedication to this especially given I only had seven days to respond to a POPLA appeal before they close it down. Hope you all have a good weekend, and let’s keep up the great work amplifying our voices with partitions etc to finally put this misery to an end.3
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards