Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 146
    • waamo
    • By waamo 26th Jan 18, 7:56 PM
    • 3,010 Posts
    • 3,889 Thanks
    waamo
    Hi,
    I've appealed through POPLA for a NTK issued by Britannia. When I track the progress Britannia have withdrawn 'as a good will gesture'. Obviously I can see this when I log in etc but this was over a week ago. I expected to recieve a notification either by letter or e-mail. Will I get a response and if so how long can I expect to wait for one?
    Thanks
    Originally posted by met6173
    I did a POPLA appeal a few weeks back. Strangely I won but didn’t have any notification. I haven’t posted details on the board as it was a high risk appeal that I wouldn’t advise anybody else using and I’ve got an ICO complaint going through on the back of it.
    This space for hire.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 26th Jan 18, 8:07 PM
    • 17,322 Posts
    • 27,294 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I did a POPLA appeal a few weeks back. Strangely I won but didn’t have any notification. I haven’t posted details on the board as it was a high risk appeal that I wouldn’t advise anybody else using and I’ve got an ICO complaint going through on the back of it.
    Originally posted by waamo
    Keep us posted waamo.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 26th Jan 18, 8:19 PM
    • 3,010 Posts
    • 3,889 Thanks
    waamo
    Keep us posted waamo.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Will do. The ICO have actually written to the company in question which is more than I expected tbh.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Jan 18, 8:25 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    For the period that the vehicle remained on site, the appellant was gaining utility from the operator in using the facilities provided, regardless of whether they considered themselves to be parked.
    More POPLA-speak, absolute balderdash written no doubt, by their 'sector expert' (could they be a PPC plant?).

    That's like saying when you are window-shopping on the pavement you are 'gaining utility from the shop'. Jeez.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 26th Jan 18, 8:28 PM
    • 17,322 Posts
    • 27,294 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    written no doubt, by their 'sector expert' (could they be a PPC plant?).
    No doubt !!!8216;on secondment!!!8217; as a mutual development opportunity for both parties.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • SidneySideboard
    • By SidneySideboard 1st Feb 18, 3:45 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    SidneySideboard
    Hi.

    I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I wanted to report a little victory thanks to the help available on this forum. I had a parking eye PCN incurred at Chelmer Retail Park last year. I managed to engage one of the shop managers to appeal on my behalf but received a reminder last week. I went online to start an appeal with parking eye and found it had been already cancelled! So thanks for the help!
    Speculate to accumulate, Rodney. He who dares wins.
    • Panzellus
    • By Panzellus 5th Feb 18, 11:40 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Panzellus
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73833011

    Operator: Car Parking Partnership (CPP)

    Verification Code: 3583407015

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Louise Dack
    Assessor summary of operator case
    On 2 November 2017, vehicle [redacted] was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking in a restricted area.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • They say that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. They are ‘forbidding parking’ signs which offer no contract a driver can accept • The appellant has not been provided with evidence any contravention took place or that the driver was not an ‘Authorised Visitor’ • The appellant says that they do not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site. • They say that a compliant Notice to Keeper was never served and as a result, no Keeper Liability can apply. • 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.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Staff permit holders only…Staff must display a valid permit at all times…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £70.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked in a restricted area. Whilst I note that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my assessment will focus solely on the operator having authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site as this supersedes the other grounds. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, the operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract in place and as a result I am unable to confirm if this contract meets the requirement of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7. Therefore, in this case, I am unable to confirm that the operator has landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 5th Feb 18, 11:40 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5744067&highlight=euro+car+parks# 1

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EURO CAR PARKS

    Verification Code
    2413527021

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor Name Carly ****
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was on site without a valid pay and display ticket or permit being purchased.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: !!!8226; The appellant says that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. !!!8226; They say that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge. !!!8226; The appellant says that the operator has not demonstrated compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, specifically section 20.5a and the images provided do not have a date and time stamp on them. !!!8226; They say that they question the operator!!!8217;s authority to issue PCNs on site. !!!8226; The appellant says that they question the accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system and says that the signage does not state what the data is used for. !!!8226; They say that the amount demanded is a penalty and that there is insufficient notice of the sum itself.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was parked on site without a valid pay and display ticket or permit being purchased. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says that the amount demanded is a penalty and that there is insufficient notice of the sum itself. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: !!!8220;!!!8230;the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.!!!8221; As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.!!!8221; Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: !!!8220;You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8221; As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 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 !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; of the charge. The Act then moved on to define !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; 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 independent assessment 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 is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. This is due to the charge amount being written within a paragraph of text and is not prominent on the signage. As I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle had the opportunity to see the charge amount, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Feb 18, 1:00 PM
    • 9,064 Posts
    • 8,761 Thanks
    The Deep
    Excellent, a parking charge in a small type face buried in a swathe of bovine excrement masquerading as a contract .
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • hubblebubble
    • By hubblebubble 5th Feb 18, 7:22 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 321 Thanks
    hubblebubble
    MET Parking Stansted " Leaving the site "
    Dear ******

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference *********.

    MET Parking Services have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team

    Below is the 'Long'! appeal I wrote, with the help and assistance of others, and reading the many threads:




    POPLA Ref ********
    MET Parking Services PCN no ***********

    A notice to keeper was issued on 22 January 2018 and received by me, the registered keeper of ********* on 25 January 2018 for the alleged contravention of having “Left the premises” at Southgate Park, Stansted on 17 December 2017.
    I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
    1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
    3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    5) No evidence that all the occupants of the car and/or driver left the site.



    1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
    • The NTK was not served within the required 14 days to transfer keeper liability
    • The NTK fails to identify the facts that caused a parking charge to arise

    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 outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. MET PARKING has failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK, as outlined within paragraph 9. Specifically, they have failed to include the 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.

    This appeal would like to specifically highlight subsection (b) as the received NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9 (5) defines a relevant period as “..the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The NTK sent appellant arrived 45 days after the alleged event. Therefore, this serves to highlight that MET PARKING have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply. As a result, the appellant is not liable for any charges, as the Notice to Keeper has not been properly ‘given’ under the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012.

    To offer further context to this point, MET PARKING has also omitted the following wording from paragraph 7 (2), of schedule 4, of POFA 2012:!
    ’The notice must –
    (a) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose…and the other facts that made those charges payable…

    Upon receiving the Notice to Keeper it lacked any description detailing the parking charges owed from the alleged ‘leaving the premises’. It did not indicate the limit of said premises, nor whether the term referred to driver or passengers as well. The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.


    2)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. I am the appellant 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.''


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

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 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 CoP) 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 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


    4)The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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

    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

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

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

    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 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.


    5) No evidence that all the occupants of the car and/or driver left the site.
    The so-called parking charge was given because the “vehicle owner / driver” were alleged to have “left the site”. However, the operator has provided no evidence to support this, nor that this is a contravention authorised by the landowner in any contract TPS hold.

    I therefore put MET Parking to strict proof of any/all occupants of the car “leaving the site” and evidence that a 'relevant obligation' was created not to leave the site. This would require a clear sign near the car, in legible and prominent font in very large letters suitable for outdoor signage, informing the driver of ALL of the following:

    (a) the boundary edges of the site (e.g. a map on the sign would be needed to pass the test of transparency of terms as set out in the CRA 2015)

    (b) a transparently stated obligation not to leave that 'site' as defined in signage

    (c) clear information as to whether this applies to passengers as well as a driver

    (d) clear and prominent information about any £100 charge in the same sort of prominent and 'very large lettering' as impressed the Judges in the Beavis case.

    All of the above were absent (unreadable or hidden in small print, if there at all).

    On the balance of probabilities, it is vanishingly unlikely in this age of people only just making ends meet, that a reasonably circumspect and careful driver would 'accept' £100 charge in this situation even if a contravention did occur (which is denied). It is also vanishingly unlikely and improbable that all of the occupants of the car left the area after parking and the evidence of this is conspicuous by its absence. Even if MET Parking have evidence of which occupant was driving or where that person went it is confidently submitted that the driver was not given 'adequate notice' of the alleged terms because no-one who drives this vehicle would ever knowingly agree to pay £100 to park for what seems to be a minute, which exceeds the annual cost of airport parking for two weeks.
    Inadequate notice of the parking charge and any obligations/contract terms, indisputably fails Schedule 4. The keeper of this car cannot be liable, and as that is me, the appellant, POPLA will be unable to find this NTK was properly given.
    `Save a little money each month, and at the end of the year, you'll be suprised at how little you have. :confused:
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Feb 18, 7:27 PM
    • 17,322 Posts
    • 27,294 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Complain to the BPA (cc the DVLA) that clearly MET had no case to pursue, yet caused you distress and significant work to produce your POPLA appeal when it was clear (and they knew it) that they were in the wrong, and so they just slinked away.

    aos@britishparking.co.uk - FTAO Mr Steve Clark

    david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Paul25
    • By Paul25 6th Feb 18, 12:48 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Paul25
    Hi are these 2 emails up to date as I intend to complain to DVLA and BPA and the ICO relating to Britannia


    I want to know how Britannia are allowed to request registered keeper details when to do so they have to affirm to the DVLA that they adhere to the BPA CoP which they clearly do not so in my opinion rightly or wrongly they are illegally asking for registered keeper details in breach od data protection laws
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Feb 18, 1:49 PM
    • 17,322 Posts
    • 27,294 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hi are these 2 emails up to date as I intend to complain to DVLA and BPA and the ICO relating to Britannia


    I want to know how Britannia are allowed to request registered keeper details when to do so they have to affirm to the DVLA that they adhere to the BPA CoP which they clearly do not so in my opinion rightly or wrongly they are illegally asking for registered keeper details in breach od data protection laws
    Originally posted by Paul25
    Well they were when I wrote that yesterday!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Paul25
    • By Paul25 6th Feb 18, 2:03 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Paul25
    Thanks Umkomaas Just wanted to check in case it had been copied from an earlier post
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Feb 18, 4:13 PM
    • 9,064 Posts
    • 8,761 Thanks
    The Deep
    MUI that they have a right to request your details to ask the name of the driver, bur must not pass them to a third party.

    BTW, none of this is illegal, but it may be unlawful. Consider a claim for a data breach, and or harassment.

    Have you read this. if not you should

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    This is exactly the sort of behaviour that Sir Gregg's Bill hopes to eradicate, a robust complaint to your MP would be in order.
    Last edited by The Deep; 06-02-2018 at 4:19 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • isudds
    • By isudds 9th Feb 18, 9:48 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    isudds
    Successful Appeal Seel Street, Liverpoo
    This is the response to appeal for PCN at Seel St. Liverpool

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal.


    These are as follows: • The appellant says that they believe the signage at the site fails the test of large lettering and prominence. They say that the terms are not readable to drivers before they park. • They say that the car park is in total darkness and the signs are not independently lit and the driver was not aware that it was privately owned. They state that when passing at a later date, the driver noticed that the payment machine was positioned behind a container and was in total darkness. • The appellant says that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras only capture the vehicle entering and exiting the site and it has not taken into consideration the actions of the driver having to drive around or finding a space. • They say they do not believe that the parking operator owns the land and it has not provided them information about their policy with the landowner.



    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a payment being made for parking. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says that the car park is in total darkness and the signs are not independently lit and the driver was not aware that it was privately owned. They state that when passing at a later date, the driver noticed that the payment machine was positioned behind a container and was in total darkness. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states in Appendix B, “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. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.” From the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 03:47 and exited the site 04:01. As such, the vehicle was on site during the hours of darkness. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site. However, all the images provided have been taken during the hours of daylight and I am unable to determine that the signage is sufficiently lit during the hours darkness. As I am unable to determine that the site is sufficiently lit during the hours of darkness, I cannot confirm that the driver of the vehicle had the opportunity to see, read and understand the terms and conditions of the car park and I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Feb 18, 9:53 AM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I can see that the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 03:47 and exited the site 04:01. As such, the vehicle was on site during the hours of darkness. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site. However, all the images provided have been taken during the hours of daylight
    ParkingEye must be so proud of what they do...dreadful.

    Well done on the win!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • robberbutton
    • By robberbutton 9th Feb 18, 12:04 PM
    • 679 Posts
    • 1,502 Thanks
    robberbutton
    Decision Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to 'no ticket'.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant's case is that she purchased a parking ticket and clearly displayed it on the dashboard by the steering wheel. The appellant explains that the photos of her vehicle do not show the full dashboard, and she feels the photos have been taken from an angle to deliberately obscure the ticket. The appellant has provided evidence of a photo of the ticket along with photographs to show where it was displayed. In addition, she has provided a witness statement from xxx who was with her on the day.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, 'Pay and display' All vehicles must display a valid ticket, permit or scratchcard, Tickets, permits or scratch cards must be clearly displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle'. The signs say a PCN of £100 will be issued for failure to comply. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant's vehicle, parked at the site at xxxx on xxxx January 2018. The appellant has provided a photograph to demonstrate where the ticket was displayed on her dashboard, and evidence of the ticket itself showing it was purchased at xxxx on the day in question. In response to the appellant's points the operator states, 'Although I understand the point the appellant is making, unfortunately, I am unable to take the mitigating circumstances into account'. I do not consider the appellant has provided mitigating circumstances to be taken into account. She has clearly stated the ticket was visible, and the warden has taken photos from an angle. This is not mitigation. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out requirements of operators, and states within Section 20.5a 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'. Section 20.5b continues, 'In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows'. Reviewing the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am not satisfied the photos demonstrate that a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows has taken place, as per the guidance by the BPA. I consider if it had, the ticket would have been visible to the parking warden. Upon consideration of the evidence, I do not consider the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

    ---

    So pleased with this as I came to the forum late and didn't make any of the usual arguments! Your advice was invaluable at the POPLA comments stage though, so thank you all.

    Original thread:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5776991
    Last edited by robberbutton; 09-02-2018 at 12:14 PM. Reason: Got rid of !!!8220; added link to thread
    Go to the ant, thou sluggard
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Feb 18, 12:10 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Reviewing the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am not satisfied the photos demonstrate that a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows has taken place, as per the guidance by the BPA.

    I consider if it had, the ticket would have been visible to the parking warden.
    Sensible decision by POPLA there. Which PPC? Do you have a link to your thread?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • robberbutton
    • By robberbutton 9th Feb 18, 12:17 PM
    • 679 Posts
    • 1,502 Thanks
    robberbutton
    Sensible decision by POPLA there. Which PPC? Do you have a link to your thread?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Have added the link. Thanks Coupon-Mad for all your encouragement and advice!
    Go to the ant, thou sluggard
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

129Posts Today

1,821Users online

Martin's Twitter