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
    • andreihoff
    • By andreihoff 15th Apr 18, 10:37 PM
    • 40Posts
    • 31Thanks
    andreihoff
    UKPC Hired Car
    • #1
    • 15th Apr 18, 10:37 PM
    UKPC Hired Car 15th Apr 18 at 10:37 PM
    Hello, I'm back with another one!

    I was the hirer of a vehicle when the driver was given a PCN by UKPC. The PCN is dated 23/03/2018 and the lessor hasn't notified me yet of any communication from UKPC. I have instructed them not to pay it and forward any letters from UKPC to me.

    Have a look at them pictures!









    I am now drafting myappeal the charge as the hirer:

    Dear Sir/Madam
    Re: PCN No.

    I challenge this 'PCN' as lessee of the car and subsequently request all future correspondence be sent directly to myself at the address listed below:

    My street:
    My Town:
    My Postcode:

    I am the vehicle's hirer and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such, the registered keeper is not the "keeper" (as defined under POFA); UKPC has no reason to contact the lessor regarding this PCN.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. There are no signs in the vicinity of the parking space. There is also no lighting on the signs so these cannot be read at night.

    Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to issue such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either offer me a POPLA code or cancel the charge.

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

    Yours faithfully,

    What do you guys think?
Page 1
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 15th Apr 18, 11:41 PM
    • 696 Posts
    • 1,817 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 18, 11:41 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 18, 11:41 PM
    In our recent experience, UKPC are now playing silly devils with lease companies by refusing to transfer liability to the hirer unless the lease company provides all of the hire documentation required under POFA - even though this is not was agreed between the BPA and the BVRLA in their Memorandum of Understanding.

    You need to "appeal" the windscreen notice in the next few days before UKPC become entitled to access the registered keeper's details from the DVLA database.

    Don't let on that the vehicle was on hire and submit your "appeal" as the vehicle's "keeper" (which POFA defines as meaning "the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper").
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 1:00 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,471 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 16th Apr 18, 1:00 AM
    • #3
    • 16th Apr 18, 1:00 AM
    I agree, so send the usual blue template (from the NEWBIES thread) as keeper, instead (''keeper'' is a vague term).

    Do this online and BEFORE DAY 27, NO LATER! But not much earlier. We advise aiming for day 26.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Apr 18, 2:48 PM
    • 11,009 Posts
    • 10,974 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 18, 2:48 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 18, 2:48 PM
    UKPC are fraudsters, read this

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

    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.
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 17th Apr 18, 8:08 AM
    • 2,041 Posts
    • 2,845 Thanks
    nigelbb
    • #5
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:08 AM
    • #5
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:08 AM
    In our recent experience, UKPC are now playing silly devils with lease companies by refusing to transfer liability to the hirer unless the lease company provides all of the hire documentation required under POFA - even though this is not was agreed between the BPA and the BVRLA in their Memorandum of Understanding.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    However that MoU is worthless as without providing the necessary documents prescribed in POFA 2012 the hirer of the vehicle cannot be held liable for parking charges incurred by the driver.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 17th Apr 18, 9:32 AM
    • 696 Posts
    • 1,817 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #6
    • 17th Apr 18, 9:32 AM
    • #6
    • 17th Apr 18, 9:32 AM
    The problem here is that were UKPC to get the lease company's details from the DVLA and in the event that the lease company did not correctly transfer liability to the hirer by sending all of the hire documents, UKPC may continue to pursue the lease company for payment rather than reissuing the PCN as a Notice to Hirer.

    There would then be a risk that the lease company would panic, pay the PCN and recharge the cost to the hirer.

    It's best to keep the lease company out of the loop if at all possible.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 17th Apr 18, 10:54 AM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,009 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 17th Apr 18, 10:54 AM
    • #7
    • 17th Apr 18, 10:54 AM
    However that MoU is worthless as without providing the necessary documents prescribed in POFA 2012 the hirer of the vehicle cannot be held liable for parking charges incurred by the driver.
    Originally posted by nigelbb
    It isnt worthless to the hire company. Were the PPC to actually sue them, the PPC would have a tough time explaining why the agreement does not apply to them....
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 17th Apr 18, 3:37 PM
    • 696 Posts
    • 1,817 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #8
    • 17th Apr 18, 3:37 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Apr 18, 3:37 PM
    It's also worth noting that Paragraph 22.11 of the BPA Code of Practice states that a parking charge may be appealed by a vehicle keeper on the grounds that the vehicle was stolen or on hire or lease at the time the unauthorised parking took place. If the rental or lease customer's details have been provided to you by the hire or lease company, you should pursue your claim instead with their customer.

    It could be argued that the term "details" just means the hirer's name and serviceable address (just like transferring liability to a driver). However, I'm sure that the BPA would argue that "details" also includes hire documents and a statement of liability.
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 17-04-2018 at 3:59 PM. Reason: To get rid of MSE's messed-up punctuations
    • StaffsSW
    • By StaffsSW 17th Apr 18, 3:41 PM
    • 5,512 Posts
    • 5,677 Thanks
    StaffsSW
    • #9
    • 17th Apr 18, 3:41 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Apr 18, 3:41 PM
    I'm second guessing this, but is that vehicle from F2M/PSA Finance?

    If so, the team there are pretty clued up in regards to transferring liability, but due to the volume they process (1000s per week) they don't tend to put up as much of a fight as some other leasing companies do.
    <--- Nothing to see here - move along --->
    • andreihoff
    • By andreihoff 17th Apr 18, 9:15 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    andreihoff
    The car was leased from a car repair shop with a small fleet of rental vehicles.

    Thank you for the advice Edna Basher and Coupon-Mad! I submitted my appeal on Monday and got a reply today:

    Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to the above parking charge.
    We have investigated your appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm that this parking charge was correctly issued because there are sufficient signs at Park Centrale Southampton advising drivers that a maximum stay of 23 hours applies.
    All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.
    The contract that UKPC has with the owner or occupier of the land (which authorises UKPC to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of Parking Charges in respect of parking of the vehicle on the land) contains a confidentiality clause and as such we are not in a position to provide the contract to you.
    As a member of the Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC are audited by the British Parking Association to ensure that we have all relevant contracts in place. UKPC will provide the court with a copy of this in full if they require it, or can provide a written statement to this effect from those party to the contract. We are also more than happy to provide confirmation to the independent assessors that we are authorised to manage parking at this site.
    We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd.
    Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that we must inform the registered keeper that the driver of a vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that as we do not know the driver!!!8217;s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e. us) of the name and current address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
    The Act also warns that if, at the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the Parking Charge is sent), the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, the operator has the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to us complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act (which we consider we do comply with, to the letter).
    Our Appeals process is now concluded, you may now pick one of the following options:
    1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of £60 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
    2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided above. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the discounted rate of £60 , and should POPLA reject your appeal you will be required to pay the full amount of £100 . If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must be made within twenty- eight days from the date of this letter. To appeal with POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to access the internet, you may appeal by post !!!8211; this must be done using a POPLA postal form which may be obtained by contacting POPLA by phone (0330 159 6126) or post (PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL).
    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) 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.
    Time to got to POPLA I guess. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the next steps are:

    1. Receive notice to hirer within 21 days
    2. Check if they have asked the hire company for my details within 14 days
    3. Appeal to POPLA based on problems with 1 & 2 within 28 days?
    Last edited by andreihoff; 17-04-2018 at 11:00 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th Apr 18, 9:38 PM
    • 11,345 Posts
    • 11,877 Thanks
    KeithP
    They are quoting from Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, but have got it wrong:
    It also notes that as we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e. us) of the name and current address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
    Apart from the fact they have stated the wrong sub-paragraph, I think they mean paragraph 9(2)(e) which states:
    (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeperó
    (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
    (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
    In other words, their letter says the keeper should notify the operator of the driver's details, but the legislation says the operator can only invite the keeper to do so.

    Clearly misleading.
    .
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 17th Apr 18, 9:51 PM
    • 2,041 Posts
    • 2,845 Thanks
    nigelbb
    It isnt worthless to the hire company. Were the PPC to actually sue them, the PPC would have a tough time explaining why the agreement does not apply to them....
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    The MoU is worthless to the PPC as they cannot use POFA 2012 to pursue the hirer. I really don't understand why the BPA would commit to something so one sided that is of zero benefit to their members. The MoU is only of benefit to the hire company.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 18th Apr 18, 12:11 AM
    • 696 Posts
    • 1,817 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Time to got to POPLA I guess. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the next steps are:

    1. Receive notice to hirer within 21 days
    2. Check if they have asked the hire company for my details within 14 days
    3. Appeal to POPLA based on problems with 1 & 2 within 28 days?
    Originally posted by andreihoff
    Now that they have been provided with the details of the vehicle's keeper (i.e. you), UKPC should not be looking to apply to the DVLA to obtain the registered keeper's details (i.e. the hire company). Therefore, the hire company should not receive anything from UKPC and there should be no subsequent Notice to Hirer.

    However, UKPC like to do things their own way and we can't be sure what they'll do next.

    We can be sure of one thing - they've quoted the wrong paragraph from POFA. Given that a windscreen notice was issued, they should have quoted from Paragraph 8 not Paragraph 9.
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 18-04-2018 at 12:20 AM.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 18th Apr 18, 12:19 AM
    • 696 Posts
    • 1,817 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    In other words, their letter says the keeper should notify the operator of the driver's details, but the legislation says the operator can only invite the keeper to do so.

    Clearly misleading.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    I agree with you, Keith - this is misleading by suggesting that the keeper has some sort of responsibility to provide the driver's details.

    ParkingEye's PCNs use similar wording (i.e. you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver......) yet our friends at POPLA think that's okay.
    • StaffsSW
    • By StaffsSW 18th Apr 18, 12:25 PM
    • 5,512 Posts
    • 5,677 Thanks
    StaffsSW
    The car was leased from a car repair shop with a small fleet of rental vehicles.
    Originally posted by andreihoff
    Ok - it's worth checking to see if the garage is the Registered Keeper or not. Many bodyshops source via Circle Leasing, and most rental Citroens are supplied on lease terms by PSA.

    It may have gone from PSA > Circle Leasing > your garage > You
    <--- Nothing to see here - move along --->
    • andreihoff
    • By andreihoff 20th Apr 18, 9:09 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    andreihoff
    Now that they have been provided with the details of the vehicle's keeper (i.e. you), UKPC should not be looking to apply to the DVLA to obtain the registered keeper's details (i.e. the hire company). Therefore, the hire company should not receive anything from UKPC and there should be no subsequent Notice to Hirer.

    However, UKPC like to do things their own way and we can't be sure what they'll do next.

    We can be sure of one thing - they've quoted the wrong paragraph from POFA. Given that a windscreen notice was issued, they should have quoted from Paragraph 8 not Paragraph 9.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    Ok so I assume that I will just have to wait to see what paperwork, if any, I receive and submit to POPLA within 30 days of the appeal rejection? Is there an ideal day to send the POPLA appeal?

    Are they still required to get their hands on this paperwork?
    (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
    (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
    (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

    Ok - it's worth checking to see if the garage is the Registered Keeper or not. Many bodyshops source via Circle Leasing, and most rental Citroens are supplied on lease terms by PSA.

    It may have gone from PSA > Circle Leasing > your garage > You
    Originally posted by StaffsSW
    The garage is not being very cooperative on this matter. I have instructed them not to pay so I hope they can at least follow instructions.
    Last edited by andreihoff; 20-04-2018 at 9:11 AM.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 20th Apr 18, 9:30 AM
    • 10,703 Posts
    • 10,087 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    I agree with you, Keith - this is misleading by suggesting that the keeper has some sort of responsibility to provide the driver's details.

    ParkingEye's PCNs use similar wording (i.e. you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver......) yet our friends at POPLA think that's okay.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher

    Of course. PE are POPLA and BPA biggest customer.
    • andreihoff
    • By andreihoff 21st Apr 18, 10:47 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    andreihoff
    I'm still not sure when would be the best time to submit my POPLA appeal and what grounds to include but this is what I have so far. I should mention that the car was in a visitor's space at the time.

    POPLA APPEAL:
    As the keeper of the above vehicle at the time of the PCN, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice UK Parking Control (UKPC) issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1. Failure to comply with the strict requirements of POFA
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there isn't any lighting on the signs
    4. BPA Code of Practice & PoFA - further non-compliance - Appeal Rejection Letter.

    1. Failure to comply with the strict requirements of POFA

    In the case of a PCN issued in respect of a hire vehicle, in order to have the right to use the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must:

    1) deliver a Notice to Keeper to the vehicle-hire firm in full compliance with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 or 9 (as the case may be);

    UKPC hasn't issued a notice to keeper.

    2) be provided with the documents specified under POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 (2) and;

    These have not been received

    3) deliver a Notice to Hirer to the vehicle's hirer in full compliance with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14.

    Again, these have not received.

    POPLA has promised that my case will be independently reviewed by one of its professional assessors taking into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice. The requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA are quite straightforward for any reasonable professional to understand and I expect that all POPLA assessors shall have a clear understanding of this particular piece of relevant law. It should therefore be very obvious to POPLA that UKPC has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA.

    The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, POFA; the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the Hirer liable for the charge are set out in Paragraph 14.

    Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper

    UKPC did not provide us with a copy of any of these documents.

    Further, UKPC's should have Issued a Notice to Hirer according with the requirements of Paragraph 14(5) including:

    Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(a), UKPC's PCN to me did not inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges may be recovered from the hirer;
    Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(b), UKPC's PCN to me did not refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper;
    Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(c), UKPC's PCN to me did not warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under Paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

    POPLA must not attempt to presume that the hirer is appealing this PCN on behalf of the driver. For the avoidance of doubt, I am simply exercising my right as hirer to appeal this PCN in my own name in exactly the same way as any other vehicle keeper or hirer is entitled to do

    2. 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.

    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

    These photos were taken at 04.00 hrs. The closest sign to the parking bay in question, is more than 30 metres away and is not visible whilst driving at night as it is too small, written in small font and not illuminated.

    The signage within the carpark is not visible at all during the night time hours and there are not enough signs in all areas of the car park. There are no lights and photos are only illuminated by the flash on the camera.

    There are no signs at all on the Archerís Road entrance and throughout most of the estate.

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

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

    link:

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

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

    link:

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park there other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    link:

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

    link:

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2!!!8221; letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3!!!8221; or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    link:

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

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

    link:

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


    4. BPA Code of Practice & PoFA - further non-compliance - Appeal Rejection Letter.

    PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(e) which states:

    (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeperó
    (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
    (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

    UKPCís appeal letter states that the keeper should notify the operator of the driver's details, but the legislation says the operator can only invite the keeper to do so.
    Last edited by andreihoff; 21-04-2018 at 11:22 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Apr 18, 11:04 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,471 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    UKCP
    in the middle a few times, needs changing to UKPC.

    I wouldn't have this because you said there was no NTK at all, so the 'letter' in question was just the standard one begging to know who was driving (presumably?) and wasn't a NTK and should not be judged as one, nor treated as a hybrid NTK (which it wasn't):

    UKPC's letter carries on incorrectly quoting from PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(b)

    "It also notes that as we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e. us) of the name and current address of the driver and pass the notice to them."
    • andreihoff
    • By andreihoff 21st Apr 18, 11:20 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    andreihoff
    in the middle a few times, needs changing to UKPC.

    I wouldn't have this because you said there was no NTK at all, so the 'letter' in question was just the standard one begging to know who was driving (presumably?) and wasn't a NTK and should not be judged as one, nor treated as a hybrid NTK (which it wasn't):
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Changed above, where did you say they are raising your statue coupon-mad?
    Last edited by andreihoff; 21-04-2018 at 11:25 PM.
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

1,038Posts Today

6,390Users online

Martin's Twitter