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
    • murkr
    • By murkr 18th Mar 18, 5:41 PM
    • 25Posts
    • 12Thanks
    murkr
    NTK Advice - Britannia Parking
    • #1
    • 18th Mar 18, 5:41 PM
    NTK Advice - Britannia Parking 18th Mar 18 at 5:41 PM
    Hi All

    I received a ticket after visiting a pub (don't worry I wasn't drinking), to watch the football.

    I received a NTK for a PCN annoyingly. I don't believe the signs were visible from where the vehicle was parked but I will need to go back there and double check, I'm sure the signs were on a wall a fair bit away from where the car was parked. It's so annoying that there's so many out there where you get ticketed for genuinely visiting and spending money somewhere!

    I have attached the front page of the notice, this was a ticket using the parking eye type cameras. Does it seem to meet the legal criteria for a NTK?

    I will be appealing on the grounds of signs not visible/clear (after visiting and taking photos). The pictures attached to the PCN do not show the signs, so will be asking them to send all pictures they have.

    Any advice would be very much appreciated!

    hxxps://imgur.com/a/PMFpq
    Last edited by murkr; 14-05-2018 at 9:41 PM.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 5:58 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 18th Mar 18, 5:58 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Mar 18, 5:58 PM
    Didn't think anything of it, until I received a NTK for a PCN annoyingly.
    But you didn't - the PCN shows that Lex Autolease did.

    So they need to name you as the Lessee/hirer, giving your name and address, then you get your own version of NOTICE TO HIRER to appeal as hirer/lessee (NOT DRIVER!). Have they done that?

    Have you got your NTH?

    Have you read the NEWBIES FAQS thread section about company/lease/hire cars and the specific section of the POFA para 13/14 to use in appeal, as written by Edna Basher?

    I will be appealing on the grounds of signs not visible/clear
    No you won't.

    See the NEWBIES thread about lessee/hirer situations, don't throw away your 100% winning appeal point, as lessee, on the basis that no NTH and lease documents were/will be served properly.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-03-2018 at 6:04 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • murkr
    • By murkr 18th Mar 18, 6:03 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:03 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:03 PM
    But you didn't - the PCN shows that Lex Autolease did.

    So they need to name you as the Lessee/hirer, giving your name and address, then you get your own version of NOTICE TO HIRER to appeal as hirer/lessee (NOT DRIVER!). Have they done that?

    Have you got your NTH?

    Have you read the NEWBIES FAQS thread section about company/lease/hire cars and the specific section of the POFA para 13/14 to use in appeal, as written by Edna Basher?



    No you won't.

    See the NEWBIES thread about lessee/hirer situations, don't throw away your 100% winning appeal point, as lessee, on the basis that no NTH and lease documents were/will be served properly.
    Thank you for this!

    Sorry, I forgot to save the picture before editing it, which seems to have been a good thing perhaps. Mind editing the link please so the PCN number etc are hidden

    I did have a look but will have another look now to see what I've missed.

    And to your answer, no this is all I have at the moment. How would they get my details to send that?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 6:05 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:05 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:05 PM
    Lex Autolease have to (and are recommended to!) discharge their liability by naming you, the lessee, and your address, exactly as the back of the PCN tells them to.

    Did they send that letter to Britannia, if not, why not, are they daft, do they WANT to stay liable?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • murkr
    • By murkr 18th Mar 18, 6:10 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    • #5
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:10 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:10 PM
    Lex Autolease have to (and are recommended to!) discharge their liability by naming you, the lessee, and your address, exactly as the back of the PCN tells them to.

    Did they send that letter to Britannia, if not, why not, are they daft, do they WANT to stay liable?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    As far as I can see, no. This is the only thing I've received, and the letter attached to it doesn't seem to state that they have passed my details on, only that they give me full authorisation to deal with this matter and that any subsequest notice recieved will be paid immediately on receipt and recharged. That's the only thing that concerns me.

    Why do you think it's not a good idea to mention the signs?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 6:14 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:14 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:14 PM
    No I didn't say not to mention the signs. That can happen later, at POPLA stage when you win.

    This is the only thing I've received, and the letter attached to it doesn't seem to state that they have passed my details on, only that they give me full authorisation to deal with this matter and that any subsequest notice recieved will be paid immediately on receipt and recharged. That's the only thing that concerns me.
    That would concern me too.

    So appeal now, using Edna Basher's version of appeal from the NEWBIES thread, amending it at the start to explain that Lex have passed the PCN to you to appeal as you are the lessee/hirer (DO NOT SAY DRIVER). No need to mention signs, use Edna Basher's words.

    We know what we are doing, your position is 100% winnable as lessee, don't blow it.

    Send a copy to Lex Autolease as well and tell them that you have appealed, that YOU DO NOT consent to them paying it even if they get another daft letter from this bunch, but ask why they do not discharge their liability by simply naming lessee/hirers, as per the POFA and as agreed on behalf of the lease/hire industry, between the BVRLA and the BPA in their Memorandum of Understanding in 2013?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-03-2018 at 6:16 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • murkr
    • By murkr 18th Mar 18, 6:19 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    • #7
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:19 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:19 PM
    No I didn't say not to mention the signs. That can happen later, at POPLA stage when you win.

    That would concern me too.

    So appeal now, using Edna Basher's version of appeal from the NEWBIES thread, amending it at the start to explain that Lex have passed the PCN to you to appeal as you are the lessee/hirer (DO NOT SAY DRIVER). No need to mention signs, use Edna Basher's words.

    We know what we are doing, your position is 100% winnable as lessee, don't blow it.

    Send a copy to Lex Autolease as well and tell them that you have appealed, that YOU DO NOT consent to them paying it even if they get another daft letter from this bunch, but ask why they do not discharge their liability by simply naming lessee/hirers, as per the POFA?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you so much!

    I have found the part you mean now, how long do they get until they need to send the NTH? It has been less than 2 weeks so should I wait until then and contact Lex in the meantime telling them, as you said that I will be appealing so I do not authorise a payment?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 6:27 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:27 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:27 PM
    No don't wait, as the PCN you have been given is already old, and you do NOT want to give Lex an excuse to pay this if Britannia rush out a reminder, which could come on Monday!

    Do exactly what I said - appeal NOW, today, ONLINE or by email and explain why you are appealing but NOT calling yourself the driver.

    Attach a copy of Lex's letter - I would, it proves you are authorised to appeal this PCN.

    And also email Lex as above, what the heck are they playing at not following BVRLA policy and leaving themselves open to court claims and liability? Madness. One letter is all that's needed to discharge their side of it.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-03-2018 at 6:29 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • murkr
    • By murkr 18th Mar 18, 6:44 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    • #9
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:44 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Mar 18, 6:44 PM
    Thank you, I have drafted this. Changed 1 or 2 lines as I did not received a NTH. I only received this about 3 days ago annoyingly so they haven't given me long to appeal!


    "Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: PCN No. xxxx Vehicle Registration: xxxxx


    I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (xxxxx) issued to me by Britannia Parking. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

    You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Britannia Parkings Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

    Given that Britannia Parking has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

    Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

    All future correspondence be sent directly to myself at the address listed below:

    1st line of address
    2nd line of address
    3rd line of address



    Yours faithfully,
    Name
    "
    Last edited by murkr; 18-03-2018 at 7:02 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 7:11 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    issued to LEX AUTOLEASE by Britannia Parking
    Not 'to me'

    I attach a copy of Lex Autolease's letter dated just last week, passing liability to me to appeal this. DO NOT contact the lease firm again now you are aware that I am the keeper under the POFA definition, and you have my name and address. Should you mishandle this data and/or write to the wrong party, I will complain to the BPA, the DVLA and the Information Commissioner.

    Yours faithfully,
    Name
    Suggested additions above, you MUST show Britannia Lex's letter attached to your email.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • murkr
    • By murkr 22nd Mar 18, 6:45 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    The appeal was sent on the 18th along with an email to Lex.

    Lex said that they can't pass my details because of data protection...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Mar 18, 1:40 AM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Lex are lying.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • murkr
    • By murkr 9th Apr 18, 10:27 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    So today I received a verdict addressed to me this time saying my appeal was rejected.

    Used a standard template "We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has been
    considered in conjunction with the photographs and any evidence provided. Our records show that the
    notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the
    Car Park."

    Nothing mentioning the fact that they failed to notify me directly. In the meantime I went back to the car park and have taken pictures. The blue car is mine and parked in the same place it was at the time.

    This picture shows the closest sign to my car: https://ibb.co/mtatpx with this one the second closest: https://ibb.co/keu6bc (from a different angle)

    What would be the best angle for the POPLA appeal? Is the fact they dind't follow the NTH non valid as Lex didn't provide them the details or should they have asked for these in the first place?

    Also as you drive in, the signs are fairly high up on the side of the wall. So as you turn to drive in, there's about a 2 metre long 'tunnel' with no signs in front of you but rather fairly high up and to the side with hardly any time for you to spot them (unless they expect you to drive with your head up and to the side). (Bare in mind that this is customer parking so I wasn't really looking for one thinking as a customer I could freely park there, have lunch in peace and watch the football with friends without worrying about a ticket!).
    Last edited by murkr; 09-04-2018 at 10:45 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 7:48 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The NTH is your best point but at POPLA you throw the kitchen sink at them, here's a typical thread on pepipoo showing a worked example (and winning example) of a Lease/hire POPLA appeal:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117415
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • murkr
    • By murkr 10th Apr 18, 10:10 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    Oh wow, that is a long letter to POPLA!

    I will draft one soon, I'll make them wait a bit first
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 10th Apr 18, 10:23 AM
    • 37,404 Posts
    • 84,290 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    There is no advantage in waiting. If you want to get shot of this you just need to show us your draft PoPLA appeal, and then submit it once the regulars have given it the OK.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • murkr
    • By murkr 25th Apr 18, 6:54 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    Sorry for the delay, I've had no free time up until now and wanted to make sure I set aside some real time to do this.

    This is what I plan on sending:



    Dear POPLA,

    On the 07/03/2018, Britannia Parking. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “parking longer than the maximum time permitted”

    As the keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

    1) As the keeper, I have no liability for this charge.

    2) Britannia Parking. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

    3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver.

    Detailed below are full explanations to support these aforementioned points as to why I refute these charges and hence why the appeal should be upheld.


    1) As the keeper, I have no liability for this charge.

    To support this point further the following areas of dispute are raised:

    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons.

    Please note, the vehicle in question is a hire vehicle. Therefore, sections 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) must be completely adhered to by the operator.

    Firstly, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was sent to Lex Autolease, whom I lease my vehicle from. My details were not requested by Britannia Parking, and they therefore did not send me a copy personally.

    The original Notice to Keeper sent to the hire company had a date issued of 07/03/18. The hire company informed the keeper on 09/03/18 of the NTK they had received. There is no mention of any of the required documentation set out in 13 (2) (a) (b) (c) being supplied to the operator by the hire company. Evidence of this document has been provided which shows the date this was sent to the hirer.

    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) sub-paragraphs 14 (2) (b) and further clarified in 14 (3) state that the creditor has 21 days, beginning with the day after that on which the documents outlined in sub-paragraphs 13 (2) (a) (b) © were given to the creditor from the hire company, to supply the keeper with this documentation. To date these have not been supplied.

    Britannia Parking have therefore far exceeded the 21-day time period, so the NTK cannot uphold keeper liability to due breaching POFA sub-paragraphs 14 (2) (b) and 14 (3).

    Furthermore, under sub-paragraph 14 (2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not sent with the required accompanying documentation, as per sub-paragraphs 13 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

    Namely;

    13 (2) (a) statement signed by, or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under the hire agreement;

    13 (2) (b) a copy of the hire agreement;

    13 (2) © a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

    None of these required documents have been provided.

    As a result of not complying with sub-paragraph 14 (2) (a) or 14 (2) (b), the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper.

    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 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. !!!8232;

    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.''!!!8232;!!!8232;!!!8232;!!!8232;


    2) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing. It is suggested that Britannia Parking. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Britannia Parking be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists. 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 (3)

    Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver.

    The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:

    18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you…. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Britannia Parking.

    To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed.

    Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this 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:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible.

    In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions. 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 the majority 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 operator’s 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. Further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    https://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.”

    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 an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:

    http://swarb.co.uk/vine-v-london-borough-o...apr-2000/

    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. Based on these points, it is believed that Britannia Parking are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions and driver safety. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either.

    Therefore, request that Britannia Parking. be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted, or the driver misinformed.

    Furthermore, Britannia are not complying with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) in that they have failed on a number of points relating to issuing a Notice to Keeper of hire vehicles with the correct documentation, as well as failing to meeting the required timeframes for the NTK, thereby fully negating any keeper liability.
    I have attached an image providing proof that the signs are poorly placed, the closest one to where the vehicle was parked is situated behind a railing and steps where you cannot get close to, to read it.

    In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Britannia Parking is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Britannia Parking.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Apr 18, 6:58 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver.
    The above needs a number 3) next to it.

    You could add in as #2, the usual template that the operator has not shown that the appellant is the person liable.

    This will win, unless POPLA have a mare.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 25th Apr 18, 7:06 PM
    • 9,313 Posts
    • 9,599 Thanks
    KeithP
    Therefore, sections 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) must be completely adhered to by the operator.
    Whilst there are sections 13 and 14 in the PoFA, they have nothing to do with private parking or keeper liability.

    I believe that sentence should look like:
    Therefore, paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) must be completely adhered to by the operator.
    .
    • murkr
    • By murkr 25th Apr 18, 10:54 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    murkr
    I've edited this accordingly.

    As the popla box allows for 2000 characters, do I simply put something like '1) As the keeper, I have no liability for this charge.

    2) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

    3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver.

    Please see attached letter for more info.
    '

    In the reasons and attach the letter?
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

2,065Posts Today

8,203Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Thanks so much to all who watched @itvMLshow LIVE last night. The ratings are in at 2.4m and 12% share, lower tha? https://t.co/Jj62j1fV5F

  • RT @stomp_3k: Oh @MartinSLewis would be proud proud of me went sim free on my mobile contract renewal and bought my handset outright saving?

  • RT @MoneySavingExp: Wales Govt steps up to help ?severely mentally impaired? access crucial council tax discount after MSE campaign - BUT M?

  • Follow Martin