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
    • fundad
    • By fundad 8th Apr 18, 11:45 AM
    • 5Posts
    • 1Thanks
    fundad
    Popla
    • #1
    • 8th Apr 18, 11:45 AM
    Popla 8th Apr 18 at 11:45 AM
    Hello all,

    Great forum and I hope to be on here for a while, although hopefully at the other side of the fence next time!

    Anyway, just dealing with a case from the scam artists that are P4Parking and am looking for a bit of advice.

    The sequence of events to date is as follows:

    Parked in a car park, and received a written ticket on return to my vehicle. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued by P4Parking.
    x days after the PCN received a letter titled Parking Charge Notice from TNC Parking Services with a Notice to Keeper, stating appeals must be made to P4 Parking.
    Sent an appeal using the standard template as the keeper etc to P4 Parking.
    P4 Parking sent a letter confirming the receipt of the appeal, rejected appeal and provided a POPLA code.
    TNC Parking Services sent a letter confirming the appeal rejection.
    TNC Parking Services sent a letter stating despite their letter of the the PCN has still not been paid and I have not advised them that I was not the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle and the time to appeal has passed.

    Hence, now am at POPLA appeal stage.
    Last edited by fundad; 09-04-2018 at 9:41 PM. Reason: Advice
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Apr 18, 12:23 PM
    • 17,655 Posts
    • 27,911 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 8th Apr 18, 12:23 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Apr 18, 12:23 PM
    Is this my best approach given the above?
    The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 will guide you through the POPLA process and includes ready-written template appeal points for you to copy and paste to form the basis of your own POPLA appeal.

    Where the PPC has failed to meet the requirements of PoFA (time deadlines as in your case, but there may be more deficiencies in the NtK - check it out), it becomes a slam-dunk winning appeal point at POPLA, provided the driver's identity has not been revealed in prior correspondence with the PPC.

    Build your draft and let us see it for critique, but given how close to the wire you've left this, you may not get the comprehensive assessment you would have had with a bit more available time. See how it goes.
    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.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 8th Apr 18, 1:38 PM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,980 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 8th Apr 18, 1:38 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Apr 18, 1:38 PM
    Parked in private resi car park (Royal Arsenal),

    Is this an "own space" ticket or were you visiting a resident?

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    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

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 8th Apr 18, 2:10 PM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,980 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 8th Apr 18, 2:10 PM
    • #4
    • 8th Apr 18, 2:10 PM
    It may well be that this ticket is overruled by the flat owner's lease/AST. Can you get hold of a copy and tell us exsctly what it says about parking, permits, and penalties please. There may be better ground for appeal thatn those you have listed, read these

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

    https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/residential-parking/


    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/213801109-Parking-Control-Management-Roboclaim-Residential-site

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/sections/115000492465-Residential-parking-problems
    Last edited by The Deep; 08-04-2018 at 2:20 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • fundad
    • By fundad 8th Apr 18, 6:29 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    fundad
    • #5
    • 8th Apr 18, 6:29 PM
    • #5
    • 8th Apr 18, 6:29 PM
    POPLA appeal drafted. Anything glaringly obvious?

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX and am appealing a parking charge which was issued for no valid parking permit on display on x date by P4 Parking.

    I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for this parking charge:

    1. The Notice to Keeper was delivered outside of the relevant period under Schedule sub paragraph 8(4)(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) – no keeper liability
    2. No liability for the Registered Keeper
    3. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
    4. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce contracts with drivers
    5. 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

    1. The Notice to Keeper was delivered outside of the relevant period under Schedule 4 sub paragraph 8(4)(5)
    POFA Schedule 4 sub-paragraph 8 (4) and (5) states the following:
    (4)The notice must be given by—
    (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
    (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
    The PCN was stated by P4Parking to be issued on x date. The keeper received the NTK on x date, this is 61 days following the initial notice. As referenced above the NTK must be issued no later than 56 days following the initial notice. Therefore the keeper cannot be made liable for this charge.

    2. No liability for the Registered Keeper

    The NTK does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, TNC or P4 Parking has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    As the Notice to Keeper is not POFA 2012 compliant, the charge liability cannot transfer from the driver to the registered keeper. P4 Parking need to pursue the driver for the charge, not the registered keeper. The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability, therefore the keeper is not liable for this charge notice. If P4Parking disagree they should provide evidence for POPLA as to the identity of the driver.
    3. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
    The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued. P4Parking notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event.

    I require P4Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that ''a parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists''.

    Neither can the charge be 'commercially justified', if P4Parking attempt that argument. POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson stated in June 2014 that:

    ''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach.”

    This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
    4. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    5. 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 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. Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states “Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of” additionally Section 18.3 states “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. It is crucial 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).
    Furthermore, there was neither 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:

    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. In this case there is not large lettering and signs all around the car park and the font sizes have been reduced to ensure the writing fits on the sign. Therefore 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.

    Your faithfully,
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th Apr 18, 6:39 PM
    • 18,147 Posts
    • 22,954 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 8th Apr 18, 6:39 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Apr 18, 6:39 PM
    I dont know if you used an old template but 3) not a gpeol died a death 18 months ago with the BEAVIS case
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 6:47 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 8th Apr 18, 6:47 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Apr 18, 6:47 PM
    Yep, remove this and you will win:

    Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
    Replace it with the template in the NEWBIES thread post #3 about the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable.

    I also notice you didn't use the long 'dodgy signs' template from the NEWBIES thread, so do so!
    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.

    • fundad
    • By fundad 8th Apr 18, 9:06 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    fundad
    • #8
    • 8th Apr 18, 9:06 PM
    • #8
    • 8th Apr 18, 9:06 PM
    Thanks both now changed (see edit).
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 11:47 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 8th Apr 18, 11:47 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Apr 18, 11:47 PM
    Can't see you've edited it at all? Which post?
    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.

    • fundad
    • By fundad 9th Apr 18, 8:42 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    fundad
    For some reason its not letting me edit the post, possibly due to the links. Regardless below is the revised appeal.

    POPLA Appeal

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX and am appealing a parking charge which was issued for no valid parking permit on display on x date by P4 Parking.

    I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for this parking charge:

    1. The Notice to Keeper was delivered outside of the relevant period under Schedule sub paragraph 8(4)(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) – no keeper liability
    2. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    3. 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
    4. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce contracts with drivers
    5. 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

    1. The Notice to Keeper was delivered outside of the relevant period under Schedule 4 sub paragraph 8(4)(5)
    POFA Schedule 4 sub-paragraph 8 (4) and (5) states the following:
    (4)The notice must be given by—
    (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
    (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
    The PCN was stated by P4Parking to be issued on x date. The keeper received the NTK on 14th February 2018, this is 61 days following the initial notice. As referenced above the NTK must be issued no later than 56 days following the initial notice. Therefore the keeper cannot be made liable for this charge.

    2. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) 'The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) - (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further 'If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.'

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper's address within the 'relevant period' which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

    3. 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
    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    4. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    5. 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

    I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

    ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the writing, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

    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. Therefore 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.

    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' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    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.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 9th Apr 18, 8:56 PM
    • 36,653 Posts
    • 83,023 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Edit posts 1 and 4 to remove information about who did what. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper if you want to rely on non-POFA compliant NTK.

    Parking scammers monitor these fora.
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 9:00 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep, that wins!
    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.

    • fundad
    • By fundad 9th Apr 18, 9:37 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    fundad
    I will post the outcome in the decisions thread
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

1,113Posts Today

6,588Users online

Martin's Twitter