inadequate signage

snickersinatwix

Hi Everyone,

I am a newbie and only just looked for help because until now I thought I had 3 ‘slamdunk’ reasons for cancellation.

 But I have just had my appeal rejected by POPLA and would like to ask if anyone is aware of anyone ever successfully appealing at POPLA on the grounds that the signage was inadequate?

I now think that because of their background/experience, ALL the POPLA assessors assume that if there is a sign then any reasonable person would go study it. And that they really don’t understand that that is NOT what the average UK driver assumes/does?

I have read some of the threads (but I think I cannot send links?) and also I saw that one  of those CM provides link to VINE -V- LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST; CA 5 APR 2000

and I read that....but my question is does the “No signs seen = no contract” argument ever work at POPLA.?

Because I think it should be a logical certainty for my case because the ONLY condition was that I must register my vehicle on the terminal (or pay £100). And if that is the only condition then surely any reasonable driver will comply unless he is unaware of the condition?

 So either I am unreasonable or I didn’t see the sign?

 I thought that the sign at the entrance to controlled parking zone was crucial and that it must inform the driver that terms apply and must direct the driver to how/where to view/consider those terms?

 I attach the page from Eurocarparks evidence to POPLA that shows the entrance sign. It is below a camera and so obviously it must be unlit (or the camera above it would be blinded). It was sent to me as pdf and I dont think I can post that format and so I have converted but the quality is similar- In  their pdf picture (which is in daylight) the only legible bit is  a ‘P’ and ‘authorised guests only’.

The carpark belonged to Harvester restaurant and I went there (intending to eat) in the dark (9pm in February). So I did not see, let alone read their entry sign and even if I had then ‘P’ and ‘authorised guests only’ is not enough to ‘form a contract’?

In my case I parked and walked (with my wife) to restaurant entrance  only to be told that they had closed early. And crucially we were NOT told about any parking requirements and we were not shown nor allowed to see any ‘console’ nor any interior parking signage (this ‘extreme circumstance’ was I thought another ‘dead-cert’ but my POPLA appeal decision did not even consider this).

I note that the 2025 The private parking sector single Code of Practice Annex a.2.2 says “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead”. To achieve that especially at night, then this sign would have to be much lower or have much bigger lettering.

 Does the court have to agree with this code of practice?

At section 2.19 the code defines ‘parking’ as a ‘a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land’  !?!

In my case the signs refer only to a contract for ‘parking’ and not trespassing, stopping, waiting, remaining or anything else. And at the time I was unaware of their definition of ‘parking’….and I (like any reasonable person?) was unaware of Jopson vs Homeguard case.

Any thoughts/advice would be much appreciated.

 

Thorndorise

IMHO, that entrance sign is not BPA compliant - at least not in that evidence pack as a) it's not legible, b) it's not lit, c) it doesn't actually use any of the terms the BPA recommend (moot but pedantic).

That pack also is as clear as mud, the numbers don't match up to anything and clearly the purported entrance sign is different, moreover there is no entrance sign shown on the map they have provided (I assume denoted by '1').

More difficult when we don't know what the charge was for...was it for leaving the site? i.e. did the driver park there and went somewhere else after being turned away from the entrance. etc etc.

All moot, this is easy to win, follow the ace advice from the folks on here!

Car1980

Popla are paid by the BPA.

The BPA say they audit every member's signage.

Therefore Popla will never find against on signage issues. To do so would undermine the BPA.

Remember the IAS is a kangaroo court.
Popla is a wallaby court.

Just ignore and then you can defend the court case in a proper court. Except Euro will inevitably discontinue and you won't get a chance to argue all this stuff in a witness statement I'm afraid.

Coupon-mad

None of it matters. POPLA is irrelevant.

Let it go to a claim, then defend as we do here every day. DCB Legal will discontinue, as they always do and it'll all be over. I wouldn't have even tried POPLA.

snickersinatwix

Thanks for these responses.

 

The wheatsheaf website had said that the restaurant was open til 10pm and that “there’s plenty of car parking on site.” with no mention of conditions.

The pcn says that I was onsite from 21.13pm to 21.29pm

And that the contravention is “Your vehicle was not authorised to park”.

After being ‘refused’ at Wheatsheaf door we went straight back to car and got in and started engine (it was a February evening).

 But in that area then we had earlier established that there were few restaurants serving after 9pm so we knew we had to hurry and given the 'wheatsheaf--closure-before-advertised' we felt we had to check so  spent a short time in car on the web via phone and then making phonecalls to confirm/establish an alternative.

I feel that the action of getting back into the car demonstrates a rejection of any contract?

Car1980

Yep, all valid arguments. You won't get to argue them though as they'll discontinue. See if you can condense it into a couple of paragraphs for the standard court claim defence where you explain briefly, in a nutshell.