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
    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 11th Mar 18, 5:35 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 9Thanks
    cjpez1987
    Highview Parking - Appeal rejected help
    • #1
    • 11th Mar 18, 5:35 PM
    Highview Parking - Appeal rejected help 11th Mar 18 at 5:35 PM
    Hi,

    I have received a parking charge for failure to purchase a ticket when the machine was out of order, and having no means of payment via smartphone on the date of incident. Having appealed the charge by making them aware that when parking on the premises 2 weeks prior, and the machine in working order I purchased a ticket and had no intent to deceive on this occasion had the machine been working, but my appeal was rejected. Having come across the site and since read the posts it seems my first mistake was 1) not coming across this site before appealing, and 2) admitting it was myself driving the vehicle.

    Do I still have grounds to appeal and successfully challenge/win against the parking charge even after admitting I was the driver?
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Mar 18, 5:54 PM
    • 17,992 Posts
    • 28,489 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 11th Mar 18, 5:54 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Mar 18, 5:54 PM
    Have you received a POPLA Code with the rejection?
    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Mar 18, 6:32 PM
    • 7,681 Posts
    • 7,393 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 11th Mar 18, 6:32 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Mar 18, 6:32 PM
    Having come across the site and since read the posts it seems my first mistake was 1) not coming across this site before appealing, and 2) admitting it was myself driving the vehicle.
    Originally posted by cjpez1987
    Whilst those are definitely two mistakes, can I suggest that your first mistake was to remain in the car park after discovering that you had 'no means of payment'?

    You now need to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will see how to construct a PoPLA appeal.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Mar 18, 6:46 PM
    • 58,434 Posts
    • 71,936 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 18, 6:46 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 18, 6:46 PM
    It's only Highview, a big fat ''so what'' if you now lose at POPLA due to your error of not using the NEWBIES thread appeal and being the registered keeper as appellant.

    So what, really, do a decent POPLA appeal to try to frighten them away at this stage instead (see the pre-written template points in the NEWBIES thread post #3) but who cares if it doesn't work - it's only blinking Highview! You could not have picked a tamer firm to ignore in the end.

    No-one here PAYS these firms, no matter what the circumstances, unless they lose in court and that will never happen with this bunch. Ignored them myself years ago, before POPLA was an option. Obviously you have the POPLA opportunity so don't waste it.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-03-2018 at 6:48 PM.
    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.

    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 11th Mar 18, 8:31 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 18, 8:31 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 18, 8:31 PM
    Have you received a POPLA Code with the rejection?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Yes I did receive a POPLA code with their letter
    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 11th Mar 18, 8:32 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 18, 8:32 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 18, 8:32 PM
    Whilst those are definitely two mistakes, can I suggest that your first mistake was to remain in the car park after discovering that you had 'no means of payment'?

    You now need to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will see how to construct a PoPLA appeal.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thank you for the response, and yes it was a mistake remaining in the car park. I will look at the POPLA post now for assistance
    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 11th Mar 18, 8:34 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 18, 8:34 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 18, 8:34 PM
    It's only Highview, a big fat ''so what'' if you now lose at POPLA due to your error of not using the NEWBIES thread appeal and being the registered keeper as appellant.

    So what, really, do a decent POPLA appeal to try to frighten them away at this stage instead (see the pre-written template points in the NEWBIES thread post #3) but who cares if it doesn't work - it's only blinking Highview! You could not have picked a tamer firm to ignore in the end.

    No-one here PAYS these firms, no matter what the circumstances, unless they lose in court and that will never happen with this bunch. Ignored them myself years ago, before POPLA was an option. Obviously you have the POPLA opportunity so don't waste it.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you for the response. I will do my research on POPLA posts as mentioned now. Thanks
    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 16th Mar 18, 7:55 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    • #8
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:55 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:55 PM
    Hi, I have been looking through the 'NEWBIES' thread for templates to make a POPLA appeal, but all that I can see is the thread specifying to 'NOT' admit you were the driver, which stupidly I have already done. Is there anything specifically in the thread which gives advice how to appeal to POPLA if you 'HAVE' admitted to being the driver of the vehicle, as I could not find this info in post #3 on newbies? Thank you for your assistance
    • waamo
    • By waamo 16th Mar 18, 7:58 PM
    • 3,392 Posts
    • 4,508 Thanks
    waamo
    • #9
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:58 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:58 PM
    Admitting to being the driver makes life a little more difficult but not impossible. Look at recent winning appeals and adapt one but leave out bits that ask them to prove who was driving or mention POFA.

    The other usual points such as landowner permission, signage etc should win.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Mar 18, 7:59 PM
    • 58,434 Posts
    • 71,936 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, just use the template appeal points about the other issues. Like everyone else does who has admitted they were the driver. We see this ALL the time, there is nothing new on this forum.

    Search the forum for 'POPLA blabbed driver' and I bet you will find some!
    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.

    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 16th Mar 18, 8:09 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    Admitting to being the driver makes life a little more difficult but not impossible. Look at recent winning appeals and adapt one but leave out bits that ask them to prove who was driving or mention POFA.

    The other usual points such as landowner permission, signage etc should win.
    Originally posted by waamo
    Thank you, and for the super fast response! Very much appreciated
    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 16th Mar 18, 8:11 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    Yes, just use the template appeal points about the other issues. Like everyone else does who has admitted they were the driver. We see this ALL the time, there is nothing new on this forum.

    Search the forum for 'POPLA blabbed driver' and I bet you will find some!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    As above, thank you for the quick response! Your help is very much appreciated!
    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 18th Mar 18, 6:10 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    Hi all, so I have the below appeal that has been used by a previous poster against Highview which seems detailed in their explanation of the key points raised, and seeing as I have lost the 'not the driver' option in my defence, I have removed that info and hope this will be sufficient to cover the key points I have left to try and challenge in my defence. Is this suitable, or would I need to add/remove anything further? I intend to obtain photographs of the carpark tomorrow, as the original poster stated when they used the appeal, as ALL entrance signs face away from any entering vehicles, and the sign closest to where my vehicle was parked at the time is visible, but noticeably obscured by large advertising boards.
    Many thanks for any advice or input.

    As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Highview Parking issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1) No evidence of Landowner Authority - Highview Parking is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    2) ANPR and BPA Code of Practice non-compliance
    3) Unclear signage - no contract with driver

    1) No evidence of Landowner Authority - Highview Parking is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As Highview Parking 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 Highview Parking 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

    2) ANPR and BPA Code of Practice non-compliance

    Highview Parking are in breach the British Parking Association!!!8217;s Code of Practice relating to ANPR cameras and associated signage. The code states the following:

    21.1) You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    The signs at Riverside Norwich fail to comply with the above clause. One sentence on the sign reads: !!!8220;This car park is controlled by ANPR and/or warden patrols.!!!8221; This is not transparent. Due to the phrase !!!8220;and/or!!!8221;, it is unclear whether or not Highview Parking are using ANPR technology. Furthermore, the sign does not state what the data captured by the ANPR cameras will be used for, or how long it will be stored. This is a clear violation of the BPA Code of Practice.

    The code also states:

    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators!!!8217; Handbook.

    21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.

    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    !!!8226; be registered with the Information Commissioner
    !!!8226; keep to the Data Protection Act

    !!!8226; follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    !!!8226; follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner!!!8217;s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.

    21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9).

    I contend that Highview Parking have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether Highview Parking has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

    3) 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:

    link

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

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

    link

    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:

    link

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

    link

    ''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!!!8221; 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!!!8221; or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    link

    ''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:

    link

    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.

    I attach a photo of the sign nearest to where the vehicle was parked (TBC once photos obtained) the signage is not clear and hidden by surrounding advertising boards, and I put Highview Parking to strict proof otherwise.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 6:23 PM
    • 58,434 Posts
    • 71,936 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I intend to obtain photographs of the carpark tomorrow, as the original poster stated when they used the appeal, as ALL entrance signs face away from any entering vehicles, and the sign closest to where my vehicle was parked at the time is visible, but noticeably obscured by large advertising boards.
    Good, add those as images directly into your point #3 and tell the story of those signs, in your own words as you did above.

    Your best point is likely to be your photos of signs so NO CLOSE UPS of terms!
    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.

    • cjpez1987
    • By cjpez1987 18th Mar 18, 6:40 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    cjpez1987
    Good, add those as images directly into your point #3 and tell the story of those signs, in your own words as you did above.

    Your best point is likely to be your photos of signs so NO CLOSE UPS of terms!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you Coupon-Mad. Once finalised and submitted, I will refer back with the response...and (fingers crossed) hopefully good news!
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

149Posts Today

1,651Users online

Martin's Twitter