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 QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

PCN Park Watch Antelope Park Southampton

betman
betman Posts: 171
First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
Forumite
edited 6 June 2018 at 10:06AM in Parking tickets, fines & parking
Hello fellow MSE members
Event:
Driver was experiencing cut out of engine due to oil leak. Parked on Antelope Park Southampton to visit The range where in 2017 he had parked before .Parked here rather than car park in case the AA were needed for easy access. It appears late 2017 new restrictions were introduced on this road. Driver parked in Gavan Street in a marked white line bay no Yellow lines, no wording on the ground such as a !!!8220;P!!!8221; to determine permit holders only. No visible signage from drivers seat as sign was five bays back parallel to Road. No signage facing driver along the Road of entry. Driver entered car length of Lidl loading bay and reversed back past double Yellow lines into first bay. Engine cut out and failed to start so was imobilised at this point. Driver had observed upon entering Antelope Park the Parking Eye car park T&C which were clearly visible. Also in the car park driver observed signage that advised and stated PE managed the car park.
Weeks later received PCN from Park Watch with 2 images of car plate and windscreen two white lines show this to be a road. They state " Parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a PC at Antelope Park that we are authorised to manage ( conflicting as PE say they do so who does ). The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. by parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions".
The PCN should say parked in Gavan Street. They claim driver is bound by terms in car park which have been followed surely this is contradictory and confusing. Please could the experts look over my appeal to Park Watch Many Thanks.
«1345

Comments

  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Why not put some paragraphs into that wall of text, to make it easier on the eye, so that those you are asking for help can read it more easily?
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,645
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    betman wrote: »
    Hello fellow MSE members

    Event:
    Driver was experiencing cut out of engine due to oil leak.

    Parked on Antelope Park Southampton to visit The range where in 2017 he had parked before .Parked here rather than car park in case the AA were needed for easy access.

    It appears late 2017 new restrictions were introduced on this road. Driver parked in Gavan Street in a marked white line bay no Yellow lines, no wording on the ground such as a “P” to determine permit holders only.

    No visible signage from drivers seat as sign was five bays back parallel to Road. No signage facing driver along the Road of entry.

    Driver entered car length of Lidl loading bay and reversed back past double Yellow lines into first bay. Engine cut out and failed to start so was imobilised at this point.

    Driver had observed upon entering Antelope Park the Parking Eye car park T&C which were clearly visible. Also in the car park driver observed signage that advised and stated PE managed the car park.

    Weeks later received PCN from Park Watch with 2 images of car plate and windscreen two white lines show this to be a road. They state 18th May 2018 " Parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a PC at Antelope Park that we are authorised to manage ( conflicting as PE say they do so who does ). The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. by parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions".

    The PCN should say parked in Gavan Street. They claim driver is bound by terms in car park which have been followed surely this is contradictory and confusing. Please could the experts look over my appeal to Park Watch Many Thanks.

    Can you show us a streeview link to where in Gavan Street so we can see what you mean?

    This says they are BPA members:

    http://parkwatch.co.uk/terms.php

    so POPLA is the way to go after first appeal by the keeper, as per the NEWBIES thread. Was the postal PCN received at your house, by day 15?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • betman
    betman Posts: 171
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 6 June 2018 at 10:11AM
    Dear Sir/Madam,


    Re PCN number: received
    I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny liability and consider the PCN pure intimidation.
    As the keeper of the car I have obtained the facts from the driver on the day. The driver was experiencing a cut out of the engine due to an oil leak or an electrical fault. In the interests of safety the driver came off the main highway and safely positioned the vehicle on Antelope Park Southampton to visit The Range for oil and to seek a garages advice where in 2017 he/she had parked before. The driver stopped here rather than the car park for the AA to have easy access as a courtesy to other users of the site.
    It appears that late 2017 new restrictions were introduced on this Road. The driver stopped in Gavan Street in a marked White line bay displaying no Yellow lines, no wording on the ground such as a !!!8220;P!!!8221; or zig zags to identify this was permit holders only bay. No visible signage on the drivers nearside can be seen from drivers seat as a sign was five bays back parallel facing to the Road. No signage facing the driver along the Road of entry. Driver entered by a car length of the Lidl loading bay and reversed back past double Yellow lines into the first bay. The engine again cut out and failed to start so it was then broken down and immobilised at this point so not technically parked. The driver had observed upon entering Antelope Park the various Parking Eye car park T&C signage which were clearly visible and understandable. Also later in the car park the driver confirmed and observed signage that advised and stated PE managed the site and there was Three hours Max.
    You now state in your PCN " Parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a Parking Charge at Antelope Park that we are authorised to manage ( conflicting as PE say they manage so who does.... this is not made clear to patrons ). The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park".
    I myself have visited the site in question to investigate the said car park as referred to in your PCN that you claim you are authorised to manage ( first sentence ) and have examined the facts to present to you and any legal representation that I should appoint at £250 per hour excluding costs etc:
    Entering Antelope Park from Bursledon Road you enter into Gavan Street. As you progress round the Road the first signage from a drivers seat view you notice is that of Parking Eye on the nearside who advise " 3 hour max stay for use by customers only. This car park is private property see signage in car park for terms and conditions" and that they are authorised to manage the parking in Antelope Park. Therefore,at this stage it is not unreasonable as there was no mention of yourselves or any other indication for the driver to assume this to be the case and for this to be the terms and conditions of the site. I personally would expect to see signage to the effect that other parking restrictions also are in force on site for a legal contract to be entered into. Other than this the signage is contradictory and ambiguous.
    As you continue around the road on the left at an angle not facing oncoming traffic, there is a sign that a driver could not read under the highway code regulations of being safely in control of a motor vehicle as their eyes would be concentrating on the road straight ahead and looking at traffic coming towards them. This sign is an unreadable sign of yours at the left to an entrance of a building which one would reasonably assume by it's position relates to the entering of that property due to its positioning and not to have effect by it's position of the Road you are on. At the end of the Road the driver did not turn left but went into Lidl's goods entrance straight ahead. When reversing back into the first bay on the corner past double yellow road line markings it was noticed that cars were stopped in the road in painted white line bays. There are no markings in these bays to advise this is permit only by the way of zig zags, a !!!8220;P!!!8221; or anything else to distinguish the bays from normal parking spaces which could lend one to think this could be to source revenue by entrapment.
    I have observed the stopped view from the drivers seat of a car and cannot see any visible signs on the nearside of the road at the side of a car or in front of me on the corner where you would reasonably expect a sign of this importance to be positioned namely at the entrance of the Road. Furthermore on the approach there are no signs evident on the left hand corner to advise of private parking.
    When I exited the car and purposely going up the road which you would not normally do as you would go in a forward direction, l carefully looked hard and walked up the road at a distance of five car bays approx 75 feet where on the left there was a sign parallel to the road which did not stand out and was difficult to read and had another sign on top of it and further signs in the background.
    I returned to the position where the driver would have stopped bay One and went and entered the car park where in your PCN notice you state sentence 2 !!!8220;The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park.!!!8221; I have duly walked the full length and breadth of the car park and do not find the signs of yours you state are present at which this contract breach is based upon, only the clear signs of Parking Eye. Should this reach court stage my legal team will require you to show and prove on the day of question your signage was installed within the car park which are the terms you are stating in your PCN have been breached and is the contract bound by you.
    Gavan Street is NOT a car park just a no through road with bays and is separate fenced off by barriers from the car park at a different height. I therefore reasonably consider that the contract the driver would be entering into is that of three hours as displayed in the car park not your conflicting terms. I would agree therefore that the driver would also be under the same understanding as me and therefore was not aware of the contract of yours and thus could not be entering into said contract.
    Even more conflicting is one of your sign on one side of a post facing one direction that on the other side is covered and hidden by a larger Parking Eye sign. This is conflicting as only one regulation can be in force!!!
    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.
    Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:
    1. Please provide dated photos of the signs on site, which you state formed a contract also photos of the signage installed as you state are within the car park that I am alleged to have breached. Note...For clarity I asked several general members of the public where the car park was? All without question looked at me puzzled and pointed to the many rows of cars in the car park below Gavan Street. Therefore it is not assumed the Road is the car park.
    2. Please provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.
    3. The signs in this road are inadequate, not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, wrongly positioned and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    3b Why there is conflicting signage including one of each company stating to control the parking on One post.

    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 s_ubmitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:






    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    Imgur
    imgur.com
    Imgur






    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.






    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:






    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg







    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
    "the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:






    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
    CSS Font-Size Test - Mozilla.org
    www-archive.mozilla.org
    This font is 0 point size. This font is 1 point size. This font is 2 point size. This font is 3 point size. This font is 4 point size. This font is 5 point size.






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






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






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






    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html
    eBay Buying Guides
    www.ebay.co.uk
    Shopping can be a daunting experience, but our in-depth guides will help you make well-informed purchasing decisions!!!8212;no matter what you!!!039;re buying.






    ''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 s_ubmit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.


    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:






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


    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I s_ubmit 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. 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 area and the signs were not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.


    4. 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.''

    5. 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.
    The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
    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.
  • betman
    betman Posts: 171
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    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

    6. This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates. 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 must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12.


    Park Watch have failed to fulfill 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:-

    !!!8217;!!!8217;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.!!!8217;!!!8217;

    The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore,
    paragraph 9(5) states:
    !!!8217;!!!8217;The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended!!!8217;!!!8217;

    The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 17 days after the alleged
    event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the !!!8216;Date Issued!!!8217;
    it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed !!!8216;served!!!8217;
    !!!8216;or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that CEL have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

    I will use POPLA (if offered) not the 'IAS' which has been exposed in Parliament as compromised by a conflict of interests with the IPC. The BPA were also heavily criticised and both appeals systems were condemned - hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admitted in recent years to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and saying on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog). Firms of your ilk were unanimously criticised in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18).

    I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, and retailers as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.
    Attatched images:
    Image im1 Shows entrance of park No signage either side of entrance


    Image im2 First sign encountered Parking Eye 3 Hours max stay


    Image im2a Same as above different angle


    Image im2b Other side of Road Parking Eye sign


    Image im2c Proceeding around Road still no signage Park Watch


    Image im2d Still no signage Park Watch


    Image im3 On bend driver would be looking to right at entrance to Ceram Tec inappropiate positioning and confusing entrance sign of Park Watch. Postion gives the impression this notice


    relates to Ceram Tec
    Image im3d At a different angle


    Image im4 Still proceeding along Road still no facing signage to warn the driver


    Image im4b Yet further along Road and still no warning signage Park Watch


    Image im4c At corner ready to enter Lidl goods bay. Only sign states No through Road


    Image im5 No signage on corner where driver reversed bak into and safely stopped


    Image im6c No signage on corner


    Image im7 Bay One drivers front view no warning signage Park Watch


    Image im8 75 foot of bays No signage


    Image im9 Five signs that are confusing. Park Watch is just visible under dominating signage in the middle at a height of seven foot from ground


    Image im10 Parking Eye sign stating control of Antelope Park


    Image im11c Very conflicting signs on same post. Parking eye the larger completely obscuring Park Watch tiny sign.








    Yours faithfully
  • betman
    betman Posts: 171
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Umkomaas wrote: »
    Why not put some paragraphs into that wall of text, to make it easier on the eye, so that those you are asking for help can read it more easily?


    Thanks for your reply. my original copy does have paragraphs but when posting it takes all the paragraphs away. I am not that computer savvy so I ask you please bear with me. Also i have had to make several posts to get this all on here .... Sorry to be a pain
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,433
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Is that your proposed initial appeal?

    Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread yet?
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Yet another wall of text, infected with !!!8217; (and the like) gobbledygook.

    Totally OTT for an initial appeal. No need for all the detail (keep that sort of stuff for POPLA) as it will have absolutely Nil positive effect with the PPC at this stage.

    Just use the template in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • betman
    betman Posts: 171
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 6 June 2018 at 10:16AM
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Can you show us a streeview link to where in Gavan Street so we can see what you mean?

    This says they are BPA members:

    http://parkwatch.co.uk/terms.php

    so POPLA is the way to go after first appeal by the keeper, as per the NEWBIES thread. Was the postal PCN received at your house, by day 15?


    Hello CM, Firstly thanks for such a speedy reply. 17 days. I will try to load link of Street view but have never done that before
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,433
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    https://goo.gl/maps/s82rt1uKZkJ2

    Here's Lidl, with a loading bay in the foreground.

    Is that where you parked?

    Unfortunately at the time of the latest GSV image, May 2017, there were no road markings.
  • betman
    betman Posts: 171
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    KeithP wrote: »
    https://goo.gl/maps/s82rt1uKZkJ2

    Here's Lidl, with a loading bay in the foreground.

    Is that where you parked?

    Unfortunately at the time of the latest GSV image, May 2017, there were no road markings.


    Brilliant... Thanks Keith, That's it at the end of the road. It then turns to the left The driver reversed back into the space at the bottom bay 1. Note No signage on corner
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards