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
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 6th Mar 18, 1:11 AM
    • 66Posts
    • 39Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Parkingeye fine - Aire Street Leeds
    • #1
    • 6th Mar 18, 1:11 AM
    Parkingeye fine - Aire Street Leeds 6th Mar 18 at 1:11 AM
    Hi,

    Looking for a bit of help/guidance with regards to my appeal. I'm new to posting here but have read threads regarding this until I'm cross eyed as it's really playing havoc with my anxiety with this holding over me.

    I've had my appeal to parkingeye declined today so now need to prepare my POPLA appeal.

    I don't know why it was declined from Parkingeye as no information seems to be given except for I should have paid to park. I included a lot in my appeal to them but it seems to have been ignored so not sure if I was on the right lines.

    The fine was issues on the grounds of not paying parking for a 15 miniute stay.

    The car was driven in to Aire street car park, looked for a space on the front, tried to drive round but met by a big mound of rubble, reversed round to the back, the car park was ridiculously packed with cars all over the place so trying to navigate round was almost impossible, read the terms on back wall which you needed to get out the car to do and as it was dark light up with a phone. Terms weren't agreed as wasn't clear at 4.30pm whether to pay a day rate till 6.30pm or day and night rate. Left the car park for alternative parking. Totalling 15 mins in the grounds.

    Would it help if I posted my initial appeal to Parkingeye?

    Any help would be appreciated as I just feel a bit lost with it all now.
Page 1
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 6th Mar 18, 1:18 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    • #2
    • 6th Mar 18, 1:18 AM
    • #2
    • 6th Mar 18, 1:18 AM
    I should also note that my car wasn't registered at my new address :-/ which I have now sent off to the DVLA to change address but they had to find me via a credit report.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Mar 18, 1:53 AM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,078 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 6th Mar 18, 1:53 AM
    • #3
    • 6th Mar 18, 1:53 AM
    The car was driven in to Aire street car park, looked for a space on the front, tried to drive round but met by a big mound of rubble, reversed round to the back, the car park was ridiculously packed with cars all over the place so trying to navigate round was almost impossible, read the terms on back wall which you needed to get out the car to do and as it was dark light up with a phone. Terms weren't agreed as wasn't clear at 4.30pm whether to pay a day rate till 6.30pm or day and night rate. Left the car park for alternative parking. Totalling 15 mins in the grounds.
    Sounds reasonable if you explain all of that sequence of events to POPLA and use another Aire Street POPLA appeal as your base, so it becomes very long (deliberate)! We had one about Aire St posted here much more recently than the old one I think you were looking at earlier.

    Would it help if I posted my initial appeal to Parkingeye?
    Yes please.
    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.

    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 6th Mar 18, 2:21 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    • #4
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:21 AM
    • #4
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:21 AM
    My original appeal to Parkingeye. I don't know if I rambled on a bit too much... is it normal for them to ignore completely every point?

    I am writing to appeal the PCN (ref) dated ....2017 for car reg..... I can confirm the registered address is in the process of being changed with the DVLA and will now be registered at the address as per your credit report.

    Can you please provide me with the relevant legislation advising that a credit check can be carried out without consent and what data was provided other than an address?


    I am disputing this charge due to the fact the car was never actually parked in the Aire Steet, Leeds car park, merely entered, navigated round and left to find alternative parking.


    There are no clearly mark out bays and cars were double parked and blocking other cars in. This was not suitable for safe parking and made trying to navigate round the car park extremely difficult and time consuming. There was a great risk, if the car was parked of coming back to be damaged or blocked in and not worth the risk with a disabled passenger who requires space to get in and out.


    Tp see costs/terms of parking you have to go to the very back of the car park and there was a small sign on the wall, not lit up by any form of lighting and baring in mind at 4.30pm in December it is pitch black. In order to get to this is was extremely difficult and as there was no space for a 3 point turn had to reverse around to the sign from the front spaces. If there is a sign as you enter in the dark this is NOT lit and NOT clearly visable when driving in, as stated the only sign that could be seen was on the back wall of the car park. This fails to meet the BPA Code of practice Section 18.1 and 18.2.

    "18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. 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. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.

    18.2 Entrance signs play an impor tant par t in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park"


    As there are no signs visable without having to leave your car (back wall sign) this also a noncompliance of BPA Code of practice Section 18.9.

    "18.9 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without

    needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists. "

    A disabled car user would not be able to see this sign from their car. There were also no disabled bays for a disabled passenger requiring the additional space to get out of the car.

    Once the sign on the back had been read, the terms of parking were not agreed with due to it not being clear on day/night set charges. As it was approx 4.30pm it was not clear if to pay day rate expiring at 6pm and then the 12 hour night rate also there after. Due to this being extremely unclear and knowing the stay would only be approx 2/3 hours it was decided to park else where.

    !!!12288;


    The decision was made to leave the car park for alternative parking with the assumption a grace period would have been given when deciding whether to accept the terms of parking or not in this case. This should have been given in accordance with section 13.1 and 13.2

    !!!12288;

    "13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that oppor tunity, 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.

    13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. "


    This charge relates to being a mere 5 minutes over the minimum grace period. This is unreasonable due to the fact it would have been straight in and out if the signage was clear and the car parking bays were marked out so people knew were to park without causing hazards. This resulted in entering and exiting the car park taking far longer than the couple of minutes this should have took to decide whether to agree or disagree with the terms of parking. There was no space to turn a car round and carefully reversing to the entrance/exit was required. There was more than one car trying to do this at a time and it became hectic. The terms of parking have not been agreed therefore no contract is in place with the driver and the landowner.


    Therefore in summary I appealing on the following:

    1) The car was never parked in the car park

    2) The car was never left and exited the car park

    3) Extremely unclear signage and charges not clear

    4) No clear bays making the car park hard to navigate round

    5) No contract was agreed

    6) Minimal time of 15 minutes in the car park does not justify this fee at all. This is 5 minutes over the minimum grace period is reasonable due to the fact it would have been straight in and out if the signage was clear, and the car parking bays not being marked out caused the entering and exiting the car park to take far longer than the couple of minutes this should have took to decide whether to agree or disagree with the terms of parking.

    Due to the above it would make your PCN charge invalid.


    In addition to this please find attached evidence relating to points made in this appeal:

    1) Location of alternative car park used in which terms were accepted (Wellington Street, Leeds)
    2) A call placed to Leeds city Council mobile parking to pay the charge for this parking.
    3) Receipt from the company appointed by the council to take payment
    4) google picture of poor signage
    5) Aerial view of car park pointing out issues


    Finally, please can I have a copy of your contract with the landowner, in specific setting out your terms for issuing fines for this specific car park?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Mar 18, 7:41 AM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,979 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #5
    • 6th Mar 18, 7:41 AM
    • #5
    • 6th Mar 18, 7:41 AM
    I don't know why it was declined from Parkingeye as no information seems to be given except for I should have paid to park

    Simple, they want money.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

    Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 6th Mar 18, 9:35 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:35 AM
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:35 AM
    Typical! Thought I had gone down the wrong lines with what I wrote
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 6th Mar 18, 8:20 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 18, 8:20 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 18, 8:20 PM
    Any pointers/critique on my original appeal and where I can do better for the POPLA one will be much appreciated :-)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Mar 18, 8:30 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,078 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 18, 8:30 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 18, 8:30 PM
    The decision was made to leave the car park for alternative parking
    If you have proof of paying for that alternative parking include a scan of that ticket/screenshot of the App used if it's clear that the parking period followed the car leaving.

    POPLA like evidence of seeking parking elsewhere. It shows no contract was agreed here.

    Your explanation about why it took 15 minutes (bad surface, bad signage, small bays, no disabled bays visible, no signs visible in the dark, and even when a sign was sought out, the day/night rate were so ambiguous, the driver & disabled passenger decided not to accept the offer, and left and parked elsewhere) is good to repeat in point #1 which can be called:

    1. The vehicle was not parked and this car park is unlit, has a very bad road surface, bay markings, worn machine screens & keypads, graffiti on signs, and ambiguous terms and a lack of disabled bays, which makes it impossible for POPLA to find that a contract was agreed.

    Then copy the usual template stuff from the NEWBIES thread.

    Find recent Aire Street threads and use THEIR photos for your POPLA appeal. I'm sure there was one last month with pics of a vandalised/black painted sign. Use that, or if you cannot find that thread after searching 'AIRE STREET POPLA' go get some incriminating pics!!

    Did you tick 'driver' when you appealed?

    Have you seen a copy of the NTK? Was it dated in time to arrive within 15 days?
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Mar 18, 8:31 PM
    • 7,216 Posts
    • 6,719 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 18, 8:31 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 18, 8:31 PM
    You need to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    In there you will find comprehensive details on how to construct a PoPLA appeal.

    Use all the points you can.

    Cobble together your draft and post here for critique.


    Alternatively, start as C-m suggests.
    Use the forum search facility to find other Aire Street PoPLA appeals.
    .
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 6th Mar 18, 10:02 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    I have pictures of my call placed to pay for the the council carpark (date and time) I parked in and then I called them and they sent me a receipt/invoice type thing. although it does not specify the date in which is was parked but shows I only parked there once in December :-/

    I actually live 70 miles away from the carpark or I would go at a similar time ie darkness to show how you can't see the signs.

    The original letter I got assumingly went to my old address they used a credit check agency to get my new address. So no, it didn't arrive within 15 days but the original would have. I'm not entirely comfortable with what data they got from this credit check but I guess that's a fight for another day.

    I believe I ticked registered keeper. Is there anyway to check?

    Thanks for the time I'll come back and post my draft asap.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Mar 18, 10:12 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,078 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have pictures of my call placed to pay for the the council carpark (date and time) I parked in and then I called them and they sent me a receipt/invoice type thing. although it does not specify the date in which is was parked but shows I only parked there once in December
    Great!

    I actually live 70 miles away from the carpark or I would go at a similar time ie darkness to show how you can't see the signs.
    OK so find the pics other people have shown on their Aire Street threads in recent weeks/months, and use them. Embed them into your word document looong appeal making it like an illustrated story (not uploading photos separately to POPLA). One document is easier for the Assessor to follow.

    I believe I ticked registered keeper. Is there anyway to check?
    No, but if you've seen a picture of the NTK and it would have arrived in time, and it had the POFA words on the back, then POPLA won't listen to a 'no keeper liability' argument anyway v ParkingEye, as their NTKs are considered compliant, when served in time with the right wording.
    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.

    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 6th Mar 18, 11:48 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    I have done a first draft POPLA appeal heavily based on my original parkingeye appeal so if this isnt great please let me know (prob a few typos but i can correct them before uploading).....

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    RE PCN ref: ........ for Vehicle registration ........
    I am the registered keeper of the above mentioned vehicle and have received a demand for payment from Parkingeye for a PCN issued on .
    The appeal placed to Parkingeye direct was rejected 05/03/18 without reason and a POPLA ref. of ........ was given.

    I am disputing this charge as the car was never parked in the Aire Steet, Leeds car park, merely entered, navigated round and left to find alternative parking.
    The basis of my appeal is founded on the following points:
    1) The car was never parked in the car park
    2) Extremely unclear signage and charges not clear
    3) No clear bays making the car park hard to navigate round
    4) No contract was agreed
    5) No grace period offered
    6) Contract request ignored by Parkingeye

    1. The vehicle was not parked and this car park is unlit, has a very bad road surface, bay markings, worn machine screens & keypads, graffiti on signs, and ambiguous terms and a lack of disabled bays, which makes it impossible for POPLA to find that a contract was agreed.

    There are no clearly mark out bays and cars were double parked and blocking other cars in. This was not suitable for safe parking and made trying to navigate round the car park extremely difficult and time consuming. There was a great risk, if the car was parked of coming back to be damaged or blocked in and not worth the risk with a disabled passenger who requires space to get in and out.

    (Image of aerial view of carpark labelling routes and obstructions)

    This shows the drivers point of entry to the front of the carpark (orange), the location of the mound of rubble (labelled A) that stops the driver from being able to drive forward around the carpark, the route the driver has to reverse around (red) in order to see signs and the difficulty with double parked cars, no marked out bays and the driver being required to reverse (blue) to the "exit" before being able to turn to queue to leave.

    To see costs/terms of parking you have to go to the very back of the car park and there was a small sign on the wall, not lit up by any form of lighting and baring in mind at 4.30pm in December it is pitch black. In order to get to this is was extremely difficult and as there was no space for a 3 point turn had to reverse around to the sign from the front spaces. If there is a sign as you enter in the dark this is NOT lit and NOT clearly visable when driving in, as stated the only sign that could be seen was on the back wall of the car park. This fails to meet the BPA Code of practice Section 18.1 and 18.2.
    "18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver!!!8217;s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.

    The signs are too high up on the wall and blocked by cars backed up to the wall to read clearly. Meters do not display any reference to parking fines.

    (pic here of carpark showing 2 signs at back, one behind parked cars and one on a pole, again behind cars, unlit)

    18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park"

    Having since looked up the carpark the entrance sign is on the passenger side when entering the carpark and again is not lit so wont be seen in the dark. This sign has also been vandalised making it impossible to ever read. See pic below.

    (Pic inserted of entrance showing vandalised sign on passenger side and pole sign advising tarriff is payable at meter)





    As there are no signs visable without having to leave your car (back wall sign) this also a noncompliance of BPA Code of practice Section 18.9.
    "18.9 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without
    needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists. "

    A disabled car user would not be able to see this sign from their car. There were also no disabled bays for a disabled passenger requiring the additional space to get out of the car.

    The driver read unclear sign and the terms of parking were not agreed with due to it not being clear on day/night set charges. As it was approx 4.30pm it was not clear if to pay day rate expiring at 6pm and then the 12 hour night rate also there after. Due to this being extremely unclear it was decided to park elsewhere.

    The decision was made to leave the car park for alternative parking with the assumption a grace period would have been given when deciding whether to accept the terms of parking or not in this case. This should have been given in accordance with section 13.1 and 13.2

    "13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the !!!8216;parking contract!!!8217; with you. If, having had that oppor tunity, 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.

    13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. "

    This charge relates to being a mere 5 minutes over the minimum suggested grace period. This is unreasonable due to the fact it would have been straight in and out if the signage was clear and the car parking bays were marked out so people knew were to park without causing hazards. This resulted in entering and exiting the car park taking far longer than the couple of minutes this should have took to decide whether to agree or disagree with the terms of parking. There was no space to turn a car round and carefully reversing to the entrance/exit was required. There was more than one car trying to do this at a time and it became hectic. The terms of parking have not been agreed therefore no contract is in place with the driver and the landowner.
    With there being only one entrance and exit point, as shown above) it delays a driver from leaving quickly in busy periods ie a Saturday in the run up to Christmas.

    It has been requested of Parkingeye to provide their contract with the landowner to specifically lay out terms and conditions of issuing these tickets, outlining grace periods in which a decision is made not to park in this car park but a ticket is issued. This request was ignored by Parkingeye.

    In addition to this please find further evidence relating to points made in this appeal:
    1) Location of alternative car park used in which terms were accepted (Wellington Street, Leeds)
    (Pic showing distance from this car park to one actually parked in - not sure if relevant??)

    2) A call placed to Leeds city Council mobile parking to pay the charge for this parking.
    (Pic of call record from date of call placed 15 mins after leaving this carpark)

    3) Receipt from Parkmobile the company appointed by the council to take payment

    (Pic shown of the invoice for my car reg, date, and time starting 20 minutes after leaving this carpark paying for 4 hours parking)
    Last edited by Silvercloud18; 06-03-2018 at 11:50 PM.
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 7th Mar 18, 12:11 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Unsure of what to title other sub headers and where I should place them as it all kind of falls under one header as given by C-M
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Mar 18, 12:17 AM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,078 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Where are the template points from the NEWBIES thread, like no landowner authority? I did tell you, after your first point, to ''then copy the usual template stuff from the NEWBIES thread post #3''

    and KeithP posted:
    You need to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    In there you will find comprehensive details on how to construct a PoPLA appeal.

    Use all the points you can.
    They are pre-written for you to copy.
    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.

    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 7th Mar 18, 12:25 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Sorry I am really struggling to find them on my phone. I will have a better look again on the laptop.

    Thanks again
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 1st Apr 18, 12:19 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    POPLA appeal
    Hi,

    After extensively reading this forum and heavy copying of other cases i have finally put my POPLA appeal together in its first draft if someone wouldnt mind having a read over and advising on anything that may be irrelevant or unhelpful for this case.

    Thanks (Sorry im not clued up enough to do dropbox so will just c&p below, ive had to do it in 2 comments as id exceeded word count....

    I am writing as the registered keeper of the vehicle I received a letter dated xx from ParkingEye Ltd. An appeal was submitted and acknowledged by the operator on 16/02/18 and was rejected via email on xx. I contend that I, as the registered keeper, am not liable for this charge and wish to appeal on the following grounds and evidence:

    1) The vehicle was not ever parked and this car park is unlit, has a very bad road surface, no bay markings, graffiti on signs, and ambiguous terms and a lack of disabled bays, which makes it impossible for POPLA to find that a contract was agreed.
    2) Grace Period – BPA Code of Practice - non compliance
    3) No evidence of land owner authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with BPA Code of Practice
    4) No evidence of period parked
    5) ANPR system is neither accurate or reliable
    6) Signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what ANPR data will be used for
    7) Carpark was exited as soon as possible and other parking was sourced and paid for

    1. The vehicle was not parked and this car park is unlit, has a very bad road surface, bay markings, graffiti on signs, signs position high above cars on walls and ambiguous terms and a lack of disabled bays, which makes it impossible for POPLA to find that a contract was agreed.

    Fig 1 .Birds eye view of Aire street.
    The above shows a birds eye view of the Aire Street Carpark, the carpark has no marked out bays and cars park as and where they can fit in. There are no bays suitable for a disabled driver/passenger who requires additional space to get out. This car park is also on a busy street, just off from the main train station in Leeds (train station entrance shown by yellow cross hatch). There is only one entrance and exit in to the car park. As the registered keeper I would like to make note that this was a Saturday before Christmas so this car park would have been busier, and darker, than shown in the picture. “A” on the above shows where there is a pile of rubble blocking the path around the carpark. It is suggested that this piece of waste land is not suitable for proper parking.
    The driver would not be able to turn in the space between cars so would therefore, time consumingly, need to reverse around any of the routes shown, there would also be a queue to enter and exit the carpark, again time consuming, making a stay in the car park longer than required. The car was never parked, or exited, so it would be presumed the driver did not have to park for “parking” whilst deciding whether to agree to the terms.
    In this case there was no contract or agreement on the ‘parking charge’ at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read the terms and conditions involved in this huge charge. This is dissimilar and not saved by the “Parking Eye vs 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:

    (pic from UK Supreme Court)
    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


    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.

    Aire Street, the signs are sporadically and sparsely placed, indeed obscured, places so highly on a wall you would need to stand on a car to read them, grafittied 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.

    BPA Code of practice states:

    18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. 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. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.



    Pic Aire street entrance
    18.2 Entrance signs play an impor tant part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park"

    The above picture, show on the entrance has been grafittied so you are unable to see any terms of charges, It is also noted that the entrance sign, even if free of graffiti, would not be seen by the driver as it is on the opposite side and would rely on a passenger to read it as a car entered. As shown in the pictures supplied by Parking Eye, sent with the original charge, it was pitch black on 09/12/18 at approx. 16.40, it would be impossible to read the signs with no light.
    In addition to this areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:

    “Specific parking- terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

    Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore
    compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    It cannot be reasonably assumed (particularly given this case took place after sunset in a car park without its own lighting or without any signage being adequately lit) that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park.

    The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix B) sets the requirements for entrance signs, Specifically:
    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 understand able 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 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.

    In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead (it’s not even visible), nor is it readable and understandable at all times. It is not directly lit no r does it benefit from lighting used for the parking area. It may well be made of a retro – reflective material but this is irrelevant in this case as the positioning of the entrance sign is as such that vehicle headlights will never shine on it sufficiently so as to illuminate it.

    The signs are also too high up on the wall and blocked by cars backed up to the wall to read clearly. Meters do not display any reference to parking fines. It should also be noted that text appears smaller the higher up it is.


    Pic showing pole signs higher than BMW x5

    The above shows the signs with reference to charges are in excess to 7 ft high (shown as being higher than a BMW X5) This would not be able to be read by the driver. As there are no signs visable without having to leave your car (as shown in pic above) this also a noncompliance of BPA Code of practice Section 18.9.
    "18.9 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without
    needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists. "

    A disabled car user would not be able to see the signs in Aire Street carpark from their car. There were also no disabled bays for a disabled passenger requiring the additional space to get out of the car.
    In this case the driver attempted to read the unclear sign and the terms could not be clearly seen without getting out of the car or understood due to darkness, no lighting and not being clear on day/night set charges. A decision was made by the driver to park elsewhere.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof, 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.


    2) Grace period – BPA Code of Practice - non compliance
    BPA Code of Practise (13) states 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 carpark 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 allow them a grace period to read your signs
    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.”

    In this case as detailed in point the carpark being extremely over crowded with cars parking as and where they could and only having one entrance and exit point was the only reason the driver spent 15 minutes in this car park. It should be argued that as the guidelines are only a MINIMUM of 10 minutes, additional time should be added on due to the nature of this carpark. It is noted driver attempted to read the terms and conditions and decide whether to accept as quick as the hazards in Aire Street Carpark let them.

    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 10 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 Euro Car Parks claim was 15 minutes) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
    a) The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary sourceof lighting.
    b) Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at time of the visit – [ENTRY TIME] to [EXIT TIME] (hh:mm;ss).
    c) T he lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance 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 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 and unclear signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “Important Notice” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny red text at the bottom of the sign
    f) The poor upkeep and lack of marked out bay causing drivers to struggle to navigate
    g) The fact there is only one entrance and exit point so cars have to queue/wait for drivers to come in before they can exit adding additional time in the carpark.

    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 conditions in the darkness.
    • •Decipher the confusing information being presented (one example being identifying which
    • fees actual apply (Day/night/both?).
    • •Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract
    • Safely leave the car park


    3) No evidence of land owner authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with BPA Code of Practice
    I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence.

    I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods;
    The land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100.

    I do not believe that the contract allows ParkingEye to charge paying visitors £100 for entering and exiting the car park without choosing to use it to park. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.

    Regarding Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance:
    “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) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

    Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was
    Parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
    Further more, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking ”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

    “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

    ParkingEye’s NtK states that the vehicle “entered Aire Street at [entry time] and departed at [exit time]”
    . At no stage do Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the “period of parking” to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

    By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
    .
    I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in rather than drove in and out, choosing not to park.

    5) The ANPR system is neither reliable or accurate
    The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parkingtime, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

    The Notice to Keeper states:
    “On [DATE] the vehicle: XXXXXXX entered Aire Street, Leeds at [ENTRY TIME]and departed at [EXIT TIME]
    on [DATE].

    With reference to not paying for parking for the correct period. These times do not equate to any single evidenced
    period ofparking. By ParkingEye’s own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry
    and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period ofparkingand this cannot reasonably be assumed.

    Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
    Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.

    I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, navigate around a hazardous/ uncoordinated piece of land, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave – as in this case) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that ParkingEye produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

    Part 2 below......
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 1st Apr 18, 12:20 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Part 2......

    6) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

    The signsfail to transparently warn driver of what the ANPRA data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair TradingRegulations (2008) due to inherent failure to indicate the !!!8216;commercial intent!!!8217; of the cameras.

    Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
    manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    ParkingEye!!!8217;s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

    From further investigation of ParkingEye their signs show a camera in the bottom corner stating that carpark is monitored by ANPR. This does not sate that this will be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. Nor is this clear if you do not know what ANPR is an abbreviation of. In this case at the entrance of the carpark there are signs showing !!!8220;CCTV in operation!!!8221;. It could be assumed that any cameras are for CCTV use. There is absolutely no suggestion that the cameras are in anyway related to issuing Penalty Charge Notices.
    .
    The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on Euro Car Parks!!!8217; sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices
    being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states !!!8220;failiure to comply!!!8221; will result in a charge being issued.

    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take
    It take it or leave it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem
    shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

    This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68:
    Requirement for Transparency:
    1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer noticein 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.

    and Paragraph 69:
    Contract terms that may have different meanings:

    (1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator
    'fails to identify its commercial intent':

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

    Misleading omissions: 6.- (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph
    (2) !!!8211;
    (a) the commercial practice omits material information,
    (b) the commercial practice hides material information,
    (c) the commericl practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or
    untimely, or
    (d) then commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent this is already apparent from the context,
    and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.'

    It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.


    Pic showing signs by entrance at Aire Street advising CCTV 24/7


    Appendix

    Finally, additional parking was sourced that had clear terms and conditions. These were accepted by the driver on the night. Below is evidence to show parking being paid for in Wellington Street, Leeds, (time also showing it is shortly after time advised by ANPR on leaving aire street)

    Fig a) Pic showing location


    Fig b) Call places to pay for additional parking


    Fig c) invoice for parking for car reg
    Last edited by Silvercloud18; 01-04-2018 at 12:29 AM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 1st Apr 18, 1:10 AM
    • 7,216 Posts
    • 6,719 Thanks
    KeithP
    Only time to make one comment...

    Change this into what actually happened:
    The driver would was not be able to turn in the space between cars so would therefore, time consumingly, need to reverse around any of the routes shown, there would also be. As there was a queue to enter and exit the carpark, again time consuming, making a stay in the car park longer than it required should have been. The car was never parked, or exited, so it would be presumed the driver did not have to park pay for !!!8220;parking!!!8221; whilst deciding whether to agree to the terms.
    You must now be very tight for time to submit your PoPLA appeal.
    Do not miss the opportunity.
    Last edited by KeithP; 01-04-2018 at 1:14 AM.
    .
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 1st Apr 18, 1:23 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Appreciated, thanks Keith!

    V. Tight, Wednesday 4th if it's 30days but want to get it up tomorrow so can stop stressing!
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 1st Apr 18, 8:20 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    I've amended my copy as per Keith's recommendation.

    Has anyone else had a chance to add any further :-)
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

2,184Posts Today

7,437Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin