Highview

I understand that. I can't(or could) argue the signage more but I don't think Beavis would apply as the signs stating the parking charge are very similar to Beavis so may go against my argument. Currently the signs show the parking charge on a white background in large letters but I would say not large enough if you were some distance away. Letter size I would say is about an 1" high.
The large lettering is not on the entrance though, and being as it was 3 months between the event and NTK, they could quite easily have put up more/different signs in that timeframe. However I don't have any evidence to support that they have just put the signs up.
Is the argument here for Highview to prove that the correct signs were in place at the time of the event to show the signs complied with the BPA CoP??
I know this must be frustrating, and I do appreciate everyones help, but I am trying to apply this particular section to my case. I don't just want to copy and paste without understanding the reasoning.
Thanks again for your help.

I do appreciate your help with this and can understand that it must be frustrating.
I have amended the first lines of the document as requested.
I would like to add in the signage from the newbie section, but as I said in post #22, the current signage means I may need to remove some of the text and cut it down. However, if adding the wording from the newbie section on signage requires Highview to prove that the signage complied with the regulations at the time of the event, I can add the complete section in. As mentioned before, the signage could have been changed in the timeframe between the event and what is currently on display now.

POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
I received a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper of the vehicle registration mark mentioned above. My appeal to the Operator – Highview Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx/xx/xx and rejected via a letter dated xx/xx/xx. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
2. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant. Highview Parking Ltd’s own documentation shows that the event to which they refer occurred on xx/xx/xxxx, but they did not issue the charge notice until xx/xx/xxxx, which is 14+ days later.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
4. Highview Parking Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing
5. No evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
7: Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
8: Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.


1: Non-compliance of grace periods stated in the BPA Code of Practice.
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start:
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters
your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a
reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking
charge notice.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“You should allow a driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”.
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is also reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which Highview Parking claim was Xhrs Xminutes) the grace periods stated in 13.2 and 13.4 of the BPA’s Code of Practice apply in this case, given:
a) Visiting Vue Cinemas at Sol Central as a customer entitles 3 hours of free parking which was subsequently validated before leaving the Cinema
b) The time taken to park the vehicle in a parking bay, locate a sign and read the full terms and conditions prior to entering a contract.

2: This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Highview Parking Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived XX days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from Highview Parking Ltd with the ‘event date’ of xx/xx/xxxx and the issue date of xx/xx/xxxx (ie, 14+ days later!)

3: The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

4) Highview Parking Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that Highview Parking Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Highview Parking Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

5: No evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

Highview Parking Ltd’s Notice to Keeper states:
“The vehicle was recorded on our clients property at Sol Central NN1 1SR from xx/xx/xxxx xx:xx to xx/xx/xxxx xx:xx.”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced “period of parking”.
.
By Highview Parking Ltd’s own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the “In” and “Out” time of the vehicle recorded by the ANPR system.
There is no evidence of a single “period of parking” and this cannot reasonably be assumed. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
By virtue of the nature of the ANPR system recording only the entry and exit times, Highview Parking Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require Highview Parking Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

6: The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
I require Highview Parking Ltd to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked,
calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase
a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case(it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (3 hours and 5 minutes apart), it is vital that Highview Parking Ltd produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

7: Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA Code Of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

The PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph”.
The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these to the location stated. The PCN also shows two pictures of the vehicle in question. One of these pictures does not clearly show the registration mark of the vehicle.
The key point here is that the photographs must show that a vehicle was “parked” in an unauthorised way. The photos merely show that the vehicle was entering and leaving the car park.

8: Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces

BPA’s Code of Practice Version 7 – January (18.2) states:

“Entrance signs play and important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”

Highview Parking’s signs at the entrance to the car park are very difficult to spot at they are located on a pillar along with other signage on the very tight bend when negotiating the entrance to the car park. These signs are mounted high up on the wall or close to the floor and are of two different layouts and, in some places, text size for the same wording on each sign, which when negotiating the entrance make them difficult to read as some of the wording is illegible when seated in the vehicle. There is no mention on these signs of the parking charge of £70.
The parking signs within the car park detailing the terms and conditions are not visible from all parking spaces. The signs also clearly violate BPA’s Code of Practise (18.3) in that it is unremarkable, small, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. 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.

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.

Final draft before submission. If you could confirm its OK that would be great.
**deleted due to formatting error. Will repost**

Ok, I have an issue as my PC IP address is banned from the forum for some reason. I have copied from notepad on PC to email , via iphone to tablet then copied to the forum as I still have access on my tablet. I will delete and re post. Tried to contact admin but no reply.