POPLA Appeal - Park Avenue Southall

aconfusedcat

Hi there, I have read the newbie thread and am aware I will need to format a lengthy written appeal. Unfortunately our appeal got rejected by ParkingEye and in the online appeal we ticked that my father was the registered driver and keeper of the vehicle. The POFA 2012 was mentioned on the back of the first letter. My father entered the car park at 18:15:05 and then departed at 18:48:36. He bought the ticket at 18:22 for half an hour. He left before the time on the ticket expired, however, ParkingEye argues that we overstayed. There was a 7 minute delay on purchasing the ticket because there was a beggar begging for money near the machine and my father was waiting for them to move. In addition, 2 other customers were also using the machine and were having issues with it. I'm getting overwhelmed with choosing an appeal example to follow from since there are many and I'm not sure what exactly to include for mine. I have tried to find the signage online but the map doesn't show the inside of the car park.

aconfusedcat

The driver paid for 30 minutes of parking. They had to wait for 2 other drivers to finish using the machine and for a beggar to move away from the machine as the driver was paying using cash. The driver has kept the parking ticket showing it was purchased at 18:22. The driver left before the 30 minute time expired but ParkingEye argues that the ticket doesn't cover the extra minutes overstayed. Driver appealed to ParkingEye and admitted they were driver and keeper but was rejected and now given a POPLA code. This is a P&D car park but there is an option to use the PayByPhone app from searching online. 

I followed another persons POPLA appeal which was quite similar. I understand that in my case the grace period of 10 minutes is the main argument. I removed the links as I cannot post with them. 

POPLA Appeal:

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from ParkingEye, highlighting that the above-mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1.    Insufficient Grace period

2.    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

3.    No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

 

1.    Insufficient Grace period

ParkingEye has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice, specifically regarding the mandatory grace period provisions.

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

Furthermore, it states: “A grace period as set out at Annex B to this Code must be allowed by the parking operator in addition to the parking period. A parking charge must not be issued during a Grace Period.”

The driver admits to parking in the car park and making payment for 30 minutes of parking. The sequence of events is as follows:

·      Upon entering the car park, it took approximately 1 minute for the driver to manoeuvre through a busy car park and locate a vacant space.

·      The driver then had to wait for a beggar begging for cash next to the machine from drivers to move, taking around a minute.

·      The driver had to wait for 2 other drivers to finish using the pay machine and who were struggling to use the machine, which took a further 3 minutes.

·      The pay machine is to the back of the car park, requiring vehicle registration number to be inputted and payment was made in cash – taking an additional 2 minutes.

·      There is a receipt retained showing that the driver paid for 30 minutes.

 

The BPA Code of Practice according to annex B allows a minimum of 10 minutes grace period to depart. In this case, the driver paid for 60mins and stayed for 70 mins and 6 seconds. The driver stayed for an extra time of only 6 seconds, which clearly falls within the required minimum grace period.

The BPA Code of Practice according to annex B allows a minimum of 10 minutes grace period to depart. In this case, the driver paid for 30mins and stayed for 33 mins and 31 seconds. The driver stayed for an extra time of 211 seconds, which clearly falls within the required minimum grace period of 600 seconds.

Furthermore, the initial entry period before the payment was made (while searching for a space, waiting for the queue to clear, waiting for the beggar to move and walking to the machine) also falls under the initial “consideration period” as defined by the Code. It is clear that the driver acted promptly and in good faith to pay for parking, and left within a reasonable timeframe.

To issue a PCN based on a mere 211-second overstay which falls within your grace period, especially in light of the time spent navigating the site, waiting for other motorists to finish using the machine, and making prompt payment is de minimis, clearly disproportionate and fails to consider the required grace period set out by the BPA Code of Practice.

2. 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:

 

 

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:

 

 

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:

 

 

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

 

 

''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:

 

 

''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:

 

 

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. 

3. 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 then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

 

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 authorised on the material date, 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 CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

 

Paragraph 14 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowners) covering:

a)    the identity of the landowner(s)

b)    a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c)     such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d)    the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e)    the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f)      the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.

g)    responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i)       notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

j)       the parking operator's approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.

 

 I look forward to a thorough and impartial review by POPLA.

aconfusedcat

I have went back to the car park but it’s now locked as of today and the landlord has secured possession of it. I have tried phoning the number connected to the landlords company but nobody is picking up. I was able to take a picture of the signboard from the gate and I realised my dad paid for 20 minutes of parking. He did leave within the 10 minute grace period  if we count from the time of the ticket. 

aconfusedcat

I made a post a few days ago but there was no response and it is nearing the 33 day deadline for POPLA on Monday. The location is 58-78 Avenue Road, Southall.

The driver paid for 20 minutes of parking. They had to wait for 2 other drivers to finish using the machine and for a beggar to move away from the machine - the driver was paying using cash. The driver has kept receipt of the parking ticket showing it was purchased at 18:22. The driver left before the 10 minute grace period expired starting from the time of purchase but ParkingEye argues that the ticket doesn't cover the extra minutes overstayed. Driver appealed to ParkingEye and admitted they were driver and keeper but was rejected and now given a POPLA code. This is a P&D car park but there is an option to use the PayByPhone. 

I have tried to contact the landlord but there was no response, the car park is now locked and under ownership of the landlord. I have emailed my MP but I am awaiting a response. 

I can't seem to upload an image but you can see the entrance of the car park at 58 Avenue Road - it's in between the entrances to shops and has a one way sign. 


POPLA Appeal:

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from ParkingEye, highlighting that the above-mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1.    Insufficient Grace period

2.    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

3.    No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

 

1.    Insufficient Grace period

ParkingEye has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice, specifically regarding the mandatory grace period provisions.

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

Furthermore, it states: “A grace period as set out at Annex B to this Code must be allowed by the parking operator in addition to the parking period. A parking charge must not be issued during a Grace Period.”

The driver admits to parking in the car park and making payment for 20 minutes of parking. The sequence of events is as follows:

·      Upon entering the car park, it took approximately 1 minute for the driver to manoeuvre through a busy car park and locate a vacant space.

·      The driver then had to wait for a beggar begging for cash next to the machine from drivers to move, taking around a minute.

·      The driver had to wait for 2 other drivers to finish using the pay machine and who were struggling to use the machine, which took a further 3 minutes.

·      The pay machine is to the back of the car park, requiring vehicle registration number to be inputted and payment was made in cash – taking an additional 2 minutes.

·      There is a receipt retained showing that the driver paid for 20 minutes.

The BPA Code of Practice according to annex B allows a minimum of 10 minutes grace period to depart. In this case, the driver paid for 20mins and stayed for 33 mins and 31 seconds. The driver stayed for an extra time of 211 seconds, which clearly falls within the required minimum grace period of 600 seconds.

Furthermore, the initial entry period before the payment was made (while searching for a space, waiting for the queue to clear, waiting for the beggar to move and walking to the machine) also falls under the initial “consideration period” as defined by the Code. It is clear that the driver acted promptly and in good faith to pay for parking, and left within a reasonable timeframe.

To issue a PCN based on a mere 211-second overstay which falls within your grace period, especially in light of the time spent navigating the site, waiting for other motorists to finish using the machine, and making prompt payment is de minimis, clearly disproportionate and fails to consider the required grace period set out by the BPA Code of Practice.

2. 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:

 

 

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:

 

 

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:

 

 

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

 

 

''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:

 

 

''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:

 

 

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. 

3. 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 then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

 

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 authorised on the material date, 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 CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

 

Paragraph 14 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowners) covering:

a)    the identity of the landowner(s)

b)    a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c)     such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d)    the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e)    the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f)      the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.

g)    responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i)       notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

j)       the parking operator's approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.

 

 I look forward to a thorough and impartial review by POPLA.

Gr1pr

FYI

That's 3 threads about the same case, the rule is one thread per incident,  so add the above to your last thread, OR,  report this thread and ask for all 3 threads to be merged 

Adding one post to the other thread would have taken it to the top again  ( bumping  )

Thank you 

Ps, it's definitely NOT 10 minutes for the grace period 

Its a minimum of 10 minutes 

aconfusedcat

Gr1pr said:

FYI

That's 3 threads about the same case, the rule is one thread per incident,  so add the above to your last thread, OR,  report this thread and ask for all 3 threads to be merged 

Adding one post to the other thread would have taken it to the top again  ( bumping  )

Thank you 

Ps, it's definitely NOT 10 minutes for the grace period 

Its a minimum of 10 minutes 

Thank you, sorry I did comment in the older post and saw it got bumped but there was no response. I have reported to get it merged. Are there any other improvements I could make or can I just post this as my response. 

ChirpyChicken

Saying urgent doesnt help

aconfusedcat

Hi, ParkingEye have now uploaded their evidence to Popla and I have to add comments before Friday.

Their main argument is given below. They have also attached the letter of authority and signage and car park photos.

Rules and Conditions

This site is a Paid Parking car park, Queenside Furniture patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

 

All available payment options can be found within the enclosed signage. The full, correct vehicle registration must be inputted when parking payments are made.

 

Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:

 

Payment Options: Payment Machine and PayByPhone                   

Number of Paid Parking Machine: 1

 

Authority

We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

 

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

 

Additional Information

The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

 

www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring

 

Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods.

 

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;

"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."

 

“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"

 

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document included in this evidence pack.

Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality and have built up this expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.

We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.

Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at a site, we will test the system extensively before parking charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without parking charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply with.

Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source.  The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date.  Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.

Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team.  If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.

It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.

There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.

We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation.

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow Parkingeye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

 

Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured.

It is our position that the signage in place on site at this location is sufficient for this purpose and that sight of the signs on site, even if their presence was a purported planning breach, would result in the motorist concluding that parking was subject to certain conditions. Motorists would also be placed on notice that breaching the same would reasonably result in enforcement action and we contend that the terms of any such enforcement action are clear.

 

Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 22/08/2025 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on 27/08/2025, therefore we believe that we have issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).

Please find enclosed documentation confirming ParkingEye had authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the Parking Charge concerned.

System generated results page confirming revenue was taken between the appellant’s entry and exit time to the car park on the date of event.

Redacted Plate     Start Date                        End Date                            Duration                           Payment

EJ2****              22/08/2025 18:22          22/08/2025 18:42          0 hours 20 minutes                     £1.00

Car Park	Avenue Road, Southall
In Date/Time	22/08/2025 18:15:05
Out Date/Time	22/08/2025 18:48:36
Time Allowed	0 hours 0 minutes
Time In Car Park	0 hours 33 minutes
Time Paid For	0 hours 20 minutes

Coupon-mad

Not sure - in the joke Joint Code - there is a grace period for short stay 20 minute sites is there?

Anyway if you lose just ignore them unless the defendant receives a claim form.

aconfusedcat

Following another individual's argument, I have structured mine as follows. If you need any extra information such as signage photos please tell me.

This appeal should be allowed because ParkingEye’s own evidence confirms that no breach occurred.

1. ParkingEye’s Evidence Confirms Payment Was Made

ParkingEye’s evidence includes a payment record showing that 20 minutes of parking was paid for, beginning at 18:22 and ending at 18:42 on 22/08/2025.

This proves the driver complied with the contract and intended to pay for the stay. There is no dispute about non-payment.

2. Alleged Overstay – Only 3 Minutes

ParkingEye’s ANPR data records a total stay of 33 minutes. This equates to an alleged “overstay” of just 3 minutes beyond the paid duration.

Such a minor difference cannot reasonably give rise to a £100 charge. It is both legally trivial (de minimis) and entirely covered by the BPA Code’s grace period requirements.

3. BPA Code of Practice – Grace Period Requirements

The BPA Code of Practice is binding on all Accredited Operators. Section 5.2  and Annex B require:

• A consideration period upon entry to allow drivers to find a bay, unload passengers, and pay.
• A minimum 10-minute grace period after a paid period expires before enforcement action.

In this case:

• The driver paid for parking from 18:22 to 18:42.
• The vehicle exited at 18:48:36.
• The alleged 3 minute overstay is well within the minimum 10-minute mandatory grace period.

Therefore, ParkingEye’s own evidence confirms that no breach occurred.

4. Consideration Period on Arrival

The Code also requires a reasonable period upon entry. At this site, the driver had to:

• manoeuvre through a tight and narrow car park, locate and park safely at a bay (approx. 1 1/2 minutes),
• wait for a driver to finish using the machine (approx. 2 minutes), 
• wait for a beggar begging for cash to move away from the machine (approx. 2  minutes).
• needed to type the registration number correctly and find the correct change (approx 2 minutes). 

This 7-minute process is exactly the type of consideration period recognised in the BPA Code. ParkingEye’s reliance on ANPR entry/exit times, without acknowledging this, is not compliant.

5. Proportionality and Consumer Rights

Even if POPLA were to accept ParkingEye’s claim of a 211-second overstay, enforcing a £100 charge for such a trivial matter is disproportionate and contrary to the fairness requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) is not relevant here. In Beavis, the Court upheld charges for significant overstays in a free car park with commercial justification. A 211-second stay beyond a paid session, where payment was made in full, is clearly not analogous.

6. Photo Evidence is Outdated and Misleading

ParkingEye has provided images of the car park entrance and interior of the car park that are dated April 2024. These do not accurately reflect how the parking would appear under normal conditions in person at the time of the alleged parking event in August 2025. Since the parking event occured during the evening, poor lighting as seen in the ANPR entrance footage indicates that the headlights wouldn't have clearly shown the signage. There is no light on the pole so reading the sign would be more difficult during the parking event since it was dark.

Moreover, the images fail to demonstrate the tight corners and narrow and difficult layout to manoeuvre in the car park, which directly affects the time it takes a driver to locate a space and park carefully. This context is crucial to understanding the consideration period required by the BPA Code. By relying on old, selective photographs, ParkingEye’s evidence does not give a true or fair representation of the site.

7. Conclusion

ParkingEye’s evidence confirms that:

• The driver paid for 20 minutes of parking.
• The stay exceeded the paid period by only 211 seconds.
• This is fully covered by the BPA’s mandatory 10-minute minimum grace period.

The PCN has been issued contrary to the BPA Code of Practice and is unenforceable.

I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct ParkingEye to cancel the charge.

aconfusedcat

Coupon-mad said:

Not sure - in the joke Joint Code - there is a grace period for short stay 20 minute sites is there?

Anyway if you lose just ignore them unless the defendant receives a claim form.

I have attached a picture from the Feb 2025 Code but I see no mention of short stay 20 minutes. The minimum stay you can pay for is up to 20 minutes costing £1 in this car park.