Parking Eye POPLA Appeal, 7 mins over

POPLAVerificationCode: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 17/07/2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator –Parking Eye –was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 22/07/2019 and rejected via an email dated 21/08/2019. I contend that I, as the keeper, 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 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 the 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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that: “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
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. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

Needs the details from here: link

Finally, some 4 years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
(Source: was a link)
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions (in this case in the dark with no lighting), decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which parking eye claim was 10 minutes 24 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
(noncompliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract. d) The failure to light and position signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located. e) The lengthiness of Parking eyes signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included at the bottom which isn’t titled. This isn’t even to mention that the sign is totally inaccurate as it sates ‘park within marked bays’ which there is none of at all in the car park which is easily proven by my attached picture of the sign. All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and
• Decipher the confusing information being such as park in the marked bays which there are clearly none.
• Decide to park and find a ‘marked bay’ therefore entering into a contract.
• Return to car and safely leave the car park.

2.
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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.
3. 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” nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).
The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the images. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Parking Eye to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" 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 photos to the location stated.

4.
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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.
The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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 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:
Was a link
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.
Figure 1 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



Figure 1: Beavis sign


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 and sparsely 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.

Parking eyes car park signs on the Royal Welsh Warehouse site is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 : note I have blurred out the number plate of the car.


This image was taken whilst standing at ground level looking up.
• The sign is positioned high on a pole, making it difficult to read.
• The sign is not lit making it impossible to see at night time as this car park charges for 24 hours.
• The terms are made even harder to read due to the high up positioning of the sign.
• As mentioned earlier no clear bays in the car park.

The entrance signs are totally inadequate as shown by the two pictures below;



As you can see the two small signs on the entrance of the car park are totally inadequate. For many years this fence has been used to advertise local companies as proven by my second image. So the fact that there are two new tiny signs where companies have been advertised for years. So it cannot be reasonably assumed that any driver entering the car park will even notice or pay attention to the small sign.
The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs:
1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.
2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.
I dispute the two above points as the signs are not reasonably readable and are illegible in the dark.
regarding non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
Which I also do believe that they are not.
Below is an image of the pay and display machine which is not easily visible from the entire car park.


As you can see there is no signage at all around this pay and display machine to indicate to anyone who decides to walk up to it or even a clear price to park beyond the free two hour period.
In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:
“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”
Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Parking Eye. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated.
Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.
When the driver arrived at the car park it was difficult to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (not on the drivers side), invisible after dark (not lit, too high to be lit by virtue of reflecting any vehicle headlights, particularly from a moving vehicle entering the car park from a the road), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair time and grace period to read about any of the terms and conditions

Hello, I have updated my POPLA response. I have checked over and I think they have complied with the POFA requirements so I have removed that section. also have removed any refernce to poor lighting in my appeal. The appeal is actually for 10 minutes, Not sure how I mixed that up.

New POPLA appeal below.

POPLAVerificationCode: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 17/07/2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator Parking Eye was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 22/07/2019 and rejected via an email dated 21/08/2019. I contend that I, as the keeper, 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 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 the 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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that: “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
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. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

Needs the details from here: link

Finally, some 4 years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
(Source: link.)
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which parking eye claim was 10 minutes 24 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
(noncompliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract. d) The failure to light and position signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not) and legible once located. e) The lengthiness of Parking eyes signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included at the bottom which isn’t titled. This isn’t even to mention that the sign is totally inaccurate as it sates ‘park within marked bays’ which there is none of at all in the car park which is easily proven by my attached picture of the sign. All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and
• Decipher the confusing information being such as park in the marked bays which there are clearly none.
• Decide to park and find a ‘marked bay’ therefore entering into a contract.
• Return to car and safely leave the car park.

2.
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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.
3. 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” nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).
The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the images. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Parking Eye to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" 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 photos to the location stated.
4.
The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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 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:
Link
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.
Figure 1 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



Figure 1: Beavis sign


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 and sparsely 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.

Parking eyes car park signs on the Royal Welsh Warehouse site is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 : note I have blurred out the number plate of the car.


This image was taken whilst standing at ground level looking up.
• The sign is positioned high on a pole, making it difficult to read.
• The sign is not lit making it impossible to see at night time as this car park charges for 24 hours.
• The terms are made even harder to read due to the high up positioning of the sign.
• As mentioned earlier no clear bays in the car park.

The entrance signs are totally inadequate as shown by the two pictures below;



As you can see the two small signs on the entrance of the car park are totally inadequate. For many years this fence has been used to advertise local companies as proven by my second image. So the fact that there are two new tiny signs where companies have been advertised for years. So it cannot be reasonably assumed that any driver entering the car park will even notice or pay attention to the small sign.
The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs:
1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.
2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.
I dispute the two above points as the signs are not reasonably readable and are illegible in the dark.
regarding non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
Which I also do believe that they are not.
Below is an image of the pay and display machine which is not easily visible from the entire car park.


As you can see there is no signage at all around this pay and display machine to indicate to anyone who decides to walk up to it or even a clear price to park beyond the free two hour period.
In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:
“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”
Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Parking Eye. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated.
Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.
When the driver arrived at the car park it was difficult to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (not on the drivers side), invisible after dark (not lit, too high to be lit by virtue of reflecting any vehicle headlights, particularly from a moving vehicle entering the car park from a the road), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair time and grace period to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge before deciding to stay in the car park and then leave safely.