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
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 9th Apr 18, 5:49 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 2Thanks
    dudders24
    HELP! Britannia Parking PCN Received for "Non-Parking Restricted Area or Access Way"
    • #1
    • 9th Apr 18, 5:49 PM
    HELP! Britannia Parking PCN Received for "Non-Parking Restricted Area or Access Way" 9th Apr 18 at 5:49 PM
    Hi All,

    Thank you in advance for any help with this, as having read the Newbies section I am totally confused about what to do next - pay up, or fight further!!!

    Overview of PCN issue:

    - Parked in Charles Cross car park (under Office Outlet) in Plymouth
    - Managed by Britannia Parking (aka Britpark)
    - Paid and displayed a valid ticket for a 10-hour stay
    - Received PCN on 8 February for parking in a "non-parking restricted area or access way"

    The bay in question is one of several where white lines have been painted OVER older markings. In hindsight, perhaps it isn't clear whether it is okay to park there. However, my two friends (who I car share with) and I have been using this space since September 2017 without consequence. Usually as a last resort when the car park is full and/or when we're running late to college.

    I drive a Mercedes, whilst my friends drive a beat up old Vauxhall Corsa and a Seat Leon. Funny I should be the one to get ticketed...!

    I read online somewhere about not admitting to being the driver of my car and to complain to Britannia, rather than appeal, which I did via Resolver - see below:

    "I am writing to raise an issue with a Parking Charge Notification (PCN) received on 8 February 2018 for parking "in a non-parking restricted area or access bay" in the Plymouth - Charles Cross car park.

    In order to resolve this issue, I request the Parking Charge Notification be cancelled and that every 'space', 'access bay' and 'restricted area' is now clearly marked and defined in fairness to all existing and future patrons of this car park.

    At the time of parking a valid ticket was paid for and correctly displayed within the vehicle, and it was also noted that several other vehicles did not receive a PCN for parking in spaces which have been marked over/on top of previously 'restricted areas', or 'access bays'.

    Finally, I would like to add that I am a young female disabled driver with a degenerative hip condition. Although I do not yet qualify for a Blue Badge, due to my mobility issues and limited means, Charles Cross up until now has been my preferred car park for its safety, value and close proximity to the Plymouth College of Art (where I am a student).

    As recommended by Trading Standards, please respond directly to this email in order for me to keep a complete record of this case.

    I look forward to your prompt response on this matter.


    After a rather protracted amount of time, I have received the following from Britannia via Resolver - i.e. NO, PCN still stands:

    Thank you for your appeal received on 21/02/2018 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice.

    Your POPLA verification code is **********.

    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.

    Please be aware parking charge notice was issued to your vehicle because your vehicle was parked in non - parking restricted area or access way. Please be advised, your vehicle has been observed for 10 minutes parked outside a marked bay and has therefore broken the terms and conditions for using the car park. Bays are clearly marked, our signage advise that the parking charge notice will be issue to vehicles parked in non parking area.

    Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Approved Operators Scheme, the BPA Code of Practice, at all times. Our signage at this car park has been approved by the BPA. We meet all the requirements for our signage as advised under section 18 and 19 for England and Wales, or Section 28 for Scotland, of the BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice regarding signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions.

    We consequently consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw your attention to the terms and condition of the parking contract that is on offer. By leaving your vehicle in the car park outside of a marked bay you have broken the terms and conditions, and consequently we consider the Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued.

    You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

    You now have a number of options from which to choose:-
    1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted rate for a further 14 days.Please note that after this time the discounted rate will no longer apply and the full Parking Charge Notice amount will then be due within 14 days.
    1. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.
    1. Make an appeal to POPLA !!!8211; The Independent Appeals Service. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted rate, and should POPLA!!!8217;s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount. If you opt to pay the Parking Charge Notice you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.

    The POPLA service is only available in England and Wales.

    You must submit an appeal to POPLA within 28 days from the date of this outcome letter, by submitting an online case at [popla website] Your POPLA verification code is 6010958126.

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services [ombudsman website] provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.

    However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.


    I'd like to point out Britannia have done nothing about the bay - either to ensure it is clearly marked, or otherwise - so I have no doubt others will park in it and face the same fate. Surely saying something is clear when it's not should help me get out of this PCN - no?

    Again, many thanks for any help. It will will be / is greatly received!
    Last edited by dudders24; 19-04-2018 at 7:24 PM.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 5:54 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 5:54 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 5:54 PM
    Remove the POPLA code from your post above, before someone thinks it's funny to use/abuse it.

    You just mucked it up by adding this:

    Finally, I would like to add that I am a young female disabled driver with a degenerative hip condition. Although I do not yet qualify for a Blue Badge, due to my mobility issues and limited means, Charles Cross up until now has been my preferred car park for its safety, value and close proximity to the Plymouth College of Art (where I am a student).
    Ouch you just said who was driving. OUCH!

    I HATE RESOLVER, IT IS USELESS FOR PARKING CASES. YOU SHOULD HAVE USED OUR TEMPLATE APPEAL AND YOU WOULD BE 100% WINNING AT POPLA, NOW IT IS LESS LIKELY.

    YOU ADMITTED TO BEING THE DRIVER WITH THOSE WORDS!

    Luckily for you, it's only Britannia (LOL, very tame) so use our POPLA templates (post #3 of the NEWBIES thread) to appeal. Show us your draft, first.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Apr 18, 6:03 PM
    • 10,239 Posts
    • 10,134 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:03 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:03 PM
    Whether you have a blue badge or not, if you are disabled the provisions of the Equality Act apply, and the PPC must make reasonable adjustments to cater for your protected characteristics. Ask the landowner to have it cancelled.

    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.
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 19th Apr 18, 11:45 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dudders24
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 18, 11:45 AM
    POPLA Template / Response (First Appeal?)
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 18, 11:45 AM
    Oh cr*p... I didn't think it read as though I was admitting to being the driver. Super worried about this, as I don't have the reduced £60 fine, let alone the full £100 - being a student and all!

    Side note: in this particular car park it has bays painted completed red. Not lined red, solid in colour. These were previously used for Office Outlet customer parking only for a limited time period (I think 1 hour?). As of 1 March 2018, all users of the car park are now allowed to use them. The bay I parked in is not clearly marked in red, or otherwise and Britannia have done nothing to recitfy the issue... meaning many more drivers are likely to confuse it as a bay, park there and also get an unjust ticket.

    Thanks for your help! : )

    Dear Sir, or Madam,

    Re PCN number: *****

    In response to your email dated 15 April 2018, I (have removed appeal, as my initial email was titled 'Complaint' and I did not appeal the ticket - but correct me if I'm wrong / need to include this) dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny liability and consider the PCN an absolute disgrace and pure intimidation.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd vs. Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

    Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:

    1. Dated photos of the signs on site, which you contend formed a contract.
    2. All images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.

    I will use POPLA (as offered) not the 'IAS' which has been exposed in Parliament as compromised by a conflict of interests with the IPC. The BPA were also heavily criticised and both appeals systems were condemned - hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admitted in recent years to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and saying on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog). Firms of your ilk were unanimously criticised in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18).

    I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed by way of unanimous conclusion: '...we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists... should not have to put up with this''.

    Yours faithfully,


    Signed
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 19th Apr 18, 3:57 PM
    • 37,569 Posts
    • 84,504 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #5
    • 19th Apr 18, 3:57 PM
    • #5
    • 19th Apr 18, 3:57 PM
    That is not a PoPLA appeal, and you will lose if you send it. You have revealed the driver's identity in the post as well as your email to Britannia, and your initial post. They have accepted your email as an appeal otherwise they wouldn't have sent you a PoPLA code.

    You need to generate a draft PoPLA appeal using all the template points available to you from post 3 of the NWBIES then post it here for checking before you submit it.
    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
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 19th Apr 18, 7:21 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dudders24
    • #6
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:21 PM
    • #6
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:21 PM
    Hi, thanks for the reply, but is the above (posted 19th Apr 18, 10:45 AM) not a POPLA appeal??

    I am very confused and extremely worried about this. I feel so stupid for the poor wording in my email and thought I had researched the correct response / course of action to take.

    I have checked BMPA Insight and Britannia only have one case in small claims (Harrogate)...
    Last edited by dudders24; 19-04-2018 at 7:31 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 19th Apr 18, 7:27 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:27 PM
    • #7
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:27 PM
    Hi, thanks for the reply, but I'm confused - is the above (posted 19th Apr 18, 10:45 AM) not a POPLA appeal??
    Originally posted by dudders24
    If you mean the text you posted at 11:45am today, then no, it is not a PoPLA appeal.

    It even threatens an appeal to PoPLA so how can it be?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 18, 7:33 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:33 PM
    • #8
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:33 PM
    Students are surely used to research?! POPLA templates are in the NEWBIES thread post #3 and also Britannia ones would be a cinch to find, simply by putting two words into the forum search on the main first page of this parking board:

    Britannia POPLA

    Odd that you are super worried about paying anything; you seem not to have read any Britannia threads if that's what you think people do if they don't win at POPLA!
    • waamo
    • By waamo 19th Apr 18, 7:37 PM
    • 4,453 Posts
    • 5,843 Thanks
    waamo
    • #9
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:37 PM
    • #9
    • 19th Apr 18, 7:37 PM
    Here is a recent winning appeal https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73971240&postcount=20

    If constructing your own is too difficult just cut and paste it but change the details to your own.

    It's better to amend it slightly to match your circumstances but it will act as a good template.
    This space for hire.
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 21st Apr 18, 8:00 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dudders24
    Thanks Coupon-mad.... sorry to appear stupid. I'm just having some difficulty taking all this info onboard what with having ADHD and all i.e. difficulties with concentration and focus. Very much appreciate everyone's help and will re-read the Newbie's section to locate the correct template before re-posting.
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 21st Apr 18, 10:25 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dudders24
    Okay, here goes.... not sure my opening is correct, but would greatly appreciate feedback on this before submitting to POPLA. Thank you all in advance!

    POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
    Registration Number: XXXXXX

    I, the registered keeper of the above vehicle, submitted a complaint to Britannia Parking on 21 February 2018 (via the Resolver website) in relation to unclear parking bays / markings in the Charles Cross car park, Plymouth.

    On 5 April 2018, I received an ‘appeal rejection’ letter from Britannia Parking – 43 days after my initial complaint.

    I am therefore appealing the PCN issued by Britannia Parking on 8 February 2018, per the following points:

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – no Keeper Liability can apply.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    5. QUESTION: Should, or can I add anything in here about parking bays not being clearly marked and open to interpretation? Also, the photos provided do not clearly show the vehicle is parked in a ‘restricted bay, or area’…

    1. 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 (NOTE: this was 6 April 2018, but nothing received). 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.

    The operator has not shown the individual, who it is pursuing, is in fact the driver who was 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 the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm they were, but I am exercising my right not to name this person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    2. 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions – such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

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

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

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

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    WEB LINK as per template – sorry if I’m being stupid here, but I’ve lifted this letter from another thread and can’t seem to find the ‘web links’ being referred to?? Do they mean the wording below each??

    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:

    WEB LINK as per template

    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 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:

    WEB LINK as per template

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

    WEB LINK as per template

    ''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:

    WEB LINK as per template

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

    WEB LINK as per template

    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Apr 18, 10:32 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be)...
    Of course you are, you are the one appealing.

    Did you mean to write "I am the keeper throughout..."?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Apr 18, 10:41 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Your numbering doesn't match up with the headings, #2 should be higher up.

    QUESTION: Should, or can I add anything in here about parking bays not being clearly marked and open to interpretation? Also, the photos provided do not clearly show the vehicle is parked in a 'restricted bay, or area'
    You can as long as the driver is not implied, and I hope your resolver complaint did not imply who parked the car.

    If there was no NTK at all, and the driver has not been implied, you will win this anyway.

    WEB LINK as per template – sorry if I’m being stupid here, but I’ve lifted this letter from another thread and can’t seem to find the ‘web links’ being referred to? Do they mean the wording below each?
    It's a template, find it in the NEWBIES thread post #3 with working links.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-04-2018 at 7:42 PM.
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 22nd Apr 18, 9:58 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dudders24
    I copy pasted and must have missed this... should it read 'keeper' or 'appellant', or either?
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 22nd Apr 18, 11:25 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dudders24
    Should I mention that a complaint was submitted to Britannia Parking in the first instance, which has been wrongly treated as an appeal?

    Also, I have been reading around parking bay markings / lines, but I am not sure whether to highlight this issue? Some say yes, some say no and I couldn't find a link in the Newbies thread to support such issues (or have I missed it?).

    I'm particularly pee'd about this point because there are solid red parking bays for 'customer parking only' and disabled bays in this car park - both clearly designated / marked out. The bay for which the PCN was issued is not and looks like a valid parking bay (new white lines on top of older markings).

    You just know Britannia is going to do nothing about this and continue to ticket anyone that gets confused and parks in this and the other spaces with similar issues to this.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 22nd Apr 18, 11:34 AM
    • 37,524 Posts
    • 21,732 Thanks
    Quentin
    I copy pasted and must have missed this... should it read 'keeper' or 'appellant', or either?
    Originally posted by dudders24
    Keeper !
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Apr 18, 7:45 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I wrote it, and 'keeper' is right (although I take the point it's not a great sentence).

    Should I mention that a complaint was submitted to Britannia Parking in the first instance, which has been wrongly treated as an appeal?
    No, it makes no odds.

    Also, I have been reading around parking bay markings / lines, but I am not sure whether to highlight this issue?

    I'm particularly pee'd about this point because there are solid red parking bays for 'customer parking only' and disabled bays in this car park - both clearly designated / marked out. The bay for which the PCN was issued is not and looks like a valid parking bay (new white lines on top of older markings).
    Yes, if you can get photos for POPLA to see what you mean.
    • dudders24
    • By dudders24 28th Apr 18, 10:35 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dudders24
    Thanks Coupon-Mad... final draft below and waiting to go if you think it's ready?

    Dear POPLA,

    As the registered keeper of vehicle S24ARJ, I am not liable for this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and I am appealing on the grounds outlined in points 1 to 6 (listed below):

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) was never served !!!8211; no Keeper Liability can apply.
    2. Understanding Keeper liability
    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
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    5. The Terms of Contract are unfair
    6. Complaint not accepted by Britannia Parking and treated unfairly as an appeal

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) was never served !!!8211; no Keeper Liability can apply.
    Britannia Parking 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!!!8217;.!!!8221;

    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. Britannia Parking has 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. I therefore cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

    2. Understanding keeper liability
    !!!8220;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 !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    3. 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 £sum, 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 vs. Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    Web 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:

    Web 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:

    Web link

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

    Web 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:

    Web 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:

    Web 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.

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    As Britannia 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 !!!8211; such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site !!!8211; is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

    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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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 Terms of Contract are unfair
    The amount being charged £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is absolutely punitive.

    The following refers: Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'(UTCCR 1999) that ''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''

    Test of fairness:

    ''A term is unfair if...contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
    5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
    9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''

    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the UTCCR 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:

    '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

    Schedule 2 of the Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. "Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: !!!8220;A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

    I contend it is wholly unreasonable for a company to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by the act of parking. I put F1rst Parking to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regs 2013. These latter Regs require specific detailed information to be supplied by traders, by durable medium, as well as ensuring the consumer has given 'express consent' to any contract before it is performed - otherwise (unless among the stated exemptions, which a parking contract is not) any trader-consumer contract is now unenforceable and able to be cancelled by the consumer, even after the event.

    6. Complaint not accepted by Britannia Parking and treated unfairly as an appeal
    Following receipt of the PCN on 8 February 2018, a complaint was emailed to Britannia Parking via the Resolver website stating every !!!8216;space!!!8217;, !!!8216;access bay!!!8217; and !!!8216;restricted area!!!8217; is not clearly designated, per Britannia Parking!!!8217;s own restrictions / rules.

    Within the Charles Cross car park there are # disabled bays and # !!!8216;customer parking only!!!8217; bays. Note, !!!8216;customer only!!!8217; bays are painted solid red in colour, not just outlined in red. The !!!8216;non-parking!!!8217; bay, for which the PCN was issued, has white !!!8216;parking lines!!!8217; painted on top of pre-existing lines. In addition, bollards have been installed to prevent drivers across this space - in/out of the car park.

    If this appeal is not successful, then I hereby give notice to Britannia Parking that I cancel the contract alleged because they have failed to meet the requirements of the new Regulations.

    Yours Faithfully,


    The Registered Keeper
    • Castle
    • By Castle 28th Apr 18, 10:45 AM
    • 1,923 Posts
    • 2,611 Thanks
    Castle
    If that's your real VRN then I'd suggest that you redact it ASAP.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 28th Apr 18, 11:01 AM
    • 19,772 Posts
    • 31,242 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    We often recommend following:

    '1. A compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    with

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    There's a ready-written template appeal point to insert into your current draft available for you to copy and paste in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3. Thereafter, renumber the current appeal paragraphs that follow.

    Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'(UTCCR 1999)
    Obsolete. Now replaced by the 'Consumer Rights Act 2015', so it would be wise to check your reference to parts of UTCCR against new sections within CRA.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
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

265Posts Today

2,519Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @GillsSarah: Interesting! I always used to buy big name products cos I thought they?d be stronger. @MartinSLewis has changed my mind on?

  • RT @think_jessica: Think Jessica the Film 30 min doc/drama based on my mother?s true story. Narrated by @MartinSLewis is now live on https:?

  • RT @kelsher123: @MartinSLewis First time switcher! And no, it wasn?t as challenging as I thought???? A British Gas customer so no brainier. Th?

  • Follow Martin