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
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 12th May 18, 3:08 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 5Thanks
    bren5086
    LBCCC from Parkingeye
    • #1
    • 12th May 18, 3:08 PM
    LBCCC from Parkingeye 12th May 18 at 3:08 PM
    Hi there,
    I have received a LBCCC from Parking Eye, I have filled out an appeal form on their website but have not had any more correspondence. Can anyone help me out please.
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th May 18, 4:34 PM
    • 37,946 Posts
    • 22,059 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 12th May 18, 4:34 PM
    • #2
    • 12th May 18, 4:34 PM
    Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

    Read up on this now to learn about the game you are now caught up in

    #2 covers Court process and advice is there from response to various lbcca right through to the hearing
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 12th May 18, 5:04 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bren5086
    • #3
    • 12th May 18, 5:04 PM
    • #3
    • 12th May 18, 5:04 PM
    I have already read the FAQ used it to send the appeal to parking eye, was expecting a reply from parking eye with a popla code but didn't get a letter, just this lbccc
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th May 18, 5:20 PM
    • 19,963 Posts
    • 25,281 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 12th May 18, 5:20 PM
    • #4
    • 12th May 18, 5:20 PM
    complain by email to the BPA aos service, with copies of all correspondence and a simple timeline, including when the pcn was appealed and how etc

    in the last post you say you "sent the appeal" (- how ?) , whereas people normally SUBMIT an appeal using their website online appeal system , which is what the first post said

    you have not given us any indication of a timeline , yet you said you expected a popla code not an LBC, PE dont normally send out an LBC until long after an incideant has happened

    because you have an LBCCC construct a rebuttal as in post #2 of that FAQ and include the fact that they never replied to the appeal or issued a popla code

    Not sure why you have asked what to do when post #2 is very clear on what to do with an LBC

    SO DEAL WITH BOTH ASPECTS OF YOUR DILEMMA

    and also complain to the landowner and try to get them on your side, preferably with a cancellation
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th May 18, 5:42 PM
    • 37,946 Posts
    • 22,059 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 12th May 18, 5:42 PM
    • #5
    • 12th May 18, 5:42 PM
    I have already read the FAQ used it to send the appeal to parking eye, was expecting a reply from parking eye with a popla code but didn't get a letter, just this lbccc
    Originally posted by bren5086
    The same thread has the advice I pointed you to for dealing with the lbcca you have now received. See #2 there
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 12th May 18, 9:09 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bren5086
    • #6
    • 12th May 18, 9:09 PM
    • #6
    • 12th May 18, 9:09 PM
    I have read post #2 numerous times and followed all the links yet I cannot find the examples of rebuttal letters to the LBC, sorry but this is the first forum I have ever been on so I don't really know what I'm doing.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th May 18, 10:00 PM
    • 10,730 Posts
    • 11,154 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 12th May 18, 10:00 PM
    • #7
    • 12th May 18, 10:00 PM
    In post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ thread the second paragraph starts:
    If you have a Letter Before Claim (LBC, sometimes referred to on forums as a LBCCC), you must respond robustly. Look at examples of replies from LoadsofChildren123, who is legally qualified:
    To be clear, that is the fifth line from the start of post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Immediately following that there are three links - all to sample LBC responses.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 18, 2:27 AM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,690 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 13th May 18, 2:27 AM
    • #8
    • 13th May 18, 2:27 AM
    You don't have to send a letter to PE, and shouldn't, because they reportedly lose post.

    Email them:

    enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

    Now search this forum for that email address, and you will find other people's replies to LBCCCs, easily.

    Please tell us more about the location, the contravention, and whether you appealed at the start?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 13th May 18, 12:30 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bren5086
    • #9
    • 13th May 18, 12:30 PM
    • #9
    • 13th May 18, 12:30 PM
    The location is a car park the DW stadium in Wigan.
    The PCN stated that the car park is a members only car park for the Gym.
    I drove through the entrance by mistake and the anpr camera logged me.
    then I realised it wasn't a good idea to park there and I left.
    the pcn states I was parked in a members only section of a much larger car park that has members only signs and also pay and display signs, and I was parked for 14 minutes.
    I have submitted an online appeal using the template from this forum.
    I thought I would get a letter about the appeal with a popla code, but instead I got the LBC.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th May 18, 12:54 PM
    • 37,946 Posts
    • 22,059 Thanks
    Quentin
    The advice you have been given is to reply (via email) to the lbcca (faq #2), and complain about not getting a popla code

    That still stands!!
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 16th May 18, 1:06 PM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,593 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    here is a post from a year or so ago , it did not run to compilation ... so we do not know what happened in the end.... it will give you a bit of an idea .....

    the pics I posted are now not live (thanks Photobucket) but I should still have them.

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5548246&highlight=dw+stadium

    can you do some dates please ... date of parking event? ... date of first letter from parkinglie? ... date you did the parkiglie appeal? ...


    as above .. have you complained to parkinglie re no appeal reply ... no popla code ?

    and again have you appealed to the BPA ?

    Ralph
    • icsys
    • By icsys 16th May 18, 3:43 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    icsys
    Hi there,
    I have received a LBCCC from Parking Eye, I have filled out an appeal form on their website but have not had any more correspondence. Can anyone help me out please.
    Originally posted by bren5086
    If you appealed via the PE online appeals process and your appeal was rejected, you should have received a letter from PE stating theat your appeal was unsuccessful and you have reached the end of their internal appeals process.

    The letter should have a POPLA reference/verification code at the top and contain details of how to make an appeal to POPLA.

    It is my understanding that a LBCCC is received after an unsuccessful POPLA appeal after which you have a further 28 days to pay the charge, and you have still not paid.

    The location is a car park the DW stadium in Wigan.
    The PCN stated that the car park is a members only car park for the Gym.
    I drove through the entrance by mistake and the anpr camera logged me.
    then I realised it wasn't a good idea to park there and I left.
    the pcn states I was parked in a members only section of a much larger car park that has members only signs and also pay and display signs, and I was parked for 14 minutes.
    I have submitted an online appeal using the template from this forum.
    I thought I would get a letter about the appeal with a popla code, but instead I got the LBC.
    Originally posted by bren5086
    Having dealt with PE and DW over this car park, I feel your pain and frustration.

    As advised you need to give a timeline of dates for all correspondence between you and PE.

    Also read the newbies thread about LBCCC letters:
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64350585&postcount=2
    Last edited by icsys; 16-05-2018 at 3:45 PM. Reason: typo corrected
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 1st Aug 18, 11:09 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bren5086
    Hi I finally got a popla code and have composed an appeal, please check it out and feel free to help me to improve it.

    POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx


    I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.

    The Driver entered the car park to drop of his young son for a session at Soccerdome but after reading the confusing signs which were poorly displayed, he then noticed the pay and display machines and drove over to investigate the charges and timings off the pay and display car park he then moved out of the car park after speaking with another person who informed him that it was free to park further down the road on the other side of the building.

    The PCN also states that the vehicle was parked in

    DW SPORTS WIGAN-MEMBERS ONLY.

    There is no evidence to prove that was the case as this car park has duel usage. There is only one entrance and one exit to be used for both car parks.
    One car park is indeed for members of the gym but there is also a large carpark with pay and display type machines which are owned and operated by Parkingeye.


    There may be signs at the boundaries but not all areas are well-signed as a car drives through the middle of the site, so unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did.

    An unfair 'out of all proportion' charge for non-parking activity of merely driving into the car park, reading signs and leaving within minutes is precisely the sort of charge that the Beavis case Judges made clear would fail the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged!!!8217;.

    The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator:

    The vehicle entered the car park at 08:47 and left at 09:02

    British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1
    13.4 states:13 Grace periods


    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
    having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.


    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
    of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.



    2. The operator makes much of Beavis case on the LBCCC

    They are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different, essentially that case was the abuse of a free time limited public car park where signage could be used to create a contract.

    In this case, we have a confused driver entering and then leaving the car park appropriately, there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 (or £60 if paid promptly) fine is a conscionable amount to be charged whilst a confused driver attempts to work out if he can or cannot park for 14 minutes.

    Therefore, in this case GPEOL should still apply and any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract falls outside The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair.






    3. Insufficient signage.

    Parking Eye Ltd. state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visible in said images. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visible to the driver if they happened to be driving a convertible with the roof down and quite clearly this is not the case in the images. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.



    4. 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 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 Code of Practice 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.
    Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
    when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
    Parking Eye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.


    6. Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice too which Parking Eye must abide states that members of the BPA must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eyes website on the 14/03/2018, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 09/05/2018, when they sent me a Letter Before County Court Claim. I then sent them an email refuting the contents of the LBCCC and explained that I had not received any response to my initial appeal.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 2nd Aug 18, 10:29 AM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,593 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    please await further advice from the forum elders ....


    there may need to be further comment re the LBC comments while this is now at POPLA



    POPLA are well known to not understand issues and may well dismiss the appeal on such grounds .....



    did you ever get a reply from the BPA ? I presume that they did put some pressure on parkinglie .........



    have you any photo evidence to submit to POPLA ?



    as a further aside while awaiting further comments why not write to your MP ?


    watch / read the below





    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

    and slightly longer, the committee stage

    https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

    ''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

    and some quotes from the committe stage

    "The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye"
    " is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. "
    "They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies."
    "Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies."
    "The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system."
    “I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)”
    "The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever,"
    " It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not”
    "The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes this is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS"
    "what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors firms that profit, often in shady ways"
    " the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch"
    "tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition" "BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month"
    "They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified."
    " because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details."

    All from Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting) Hansard







    good luck


    Ralph
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 2nd Aug 18, 10:47 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bren5086
    nobody has looked yet help please
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd Aug 18, 11:19 PM
    • 10,730 Posts
    • 11,154 Thanks
    KeithP
    Why is your '3. Insufficient signage' section so short?

    Have you seen the signage section in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?
    Especially the line that says:
    Signage (I deliberately go to town in this section, don't cut it down!):
    .
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 4th Aug 18, 11:14 AM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,593 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    can you let us know re the questions asked above ?






    Ralph
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 5th Aug 18, 1:02 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bren5086
    Edited to include more detail about signage
    POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx


    I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.

    The Driver entered the car park to drop of his young son for a session at Soccerdome but after reading the confusing signs which were poorly displayed, he then noticed the pay and display machines and drove over to investigate the charges and timings off the pay and display car park he then moved out of the car park after speaking with another person who informed him that it was free to park further down the road on the other side of the building.

    The PCN also states that the vehicle was parked in

    DW SPORTS WIGAN-MEMBERS ONLY.

    There is no evidence to prove that was the case as this car park has duel usage. There is only one entrance and one exit to be used for both car parks.
    One car park is indeed for members of the gym but there is also a large carpark with pay and display type machines which are owned and operated by Parkingeye.


    There may be signs at the boundaries but not all areas are well-signed as a car drives through the middle of the site, so unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did.

    An unfair 'out of all proportion' charge for non-parking activity of merely driving into the car park, reading signs and leaving within minutes is precisely the sort of charge that the Beavis case Judges made clear would fail the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged’.

    The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator:

    The vehicle entered the car park at 08:47 and left at 09:02

    British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1
    13.4 states:13 Grace periods


    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
    having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.


    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
    of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.



    2. The operator makes much of Beavis case on the LBCCC

    They are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different, essentially that case was the abuse of a free time limited public car park where signage could be used to create a contract.

    In this case, we have a confused driver entering and then leaving the car park appropriately, there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 (or £60 if paid promptly) fine is a conscionable amount to be charged whilst a confused driver attempts to work out if he can or cannot park for 14 minutes.

    Therefore, in this case GPEOL should still apply and any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract falls outside The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair.






    3. Insufficient signage.

    Parking Eye Ltd. state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visible in said images. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visible to the driver if they happened to be driving a convertible with the roof down and quite clearly this is not the case in the images. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    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 v Beavis' case.

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



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

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


    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:



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


    ''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:



    ''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:



    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 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 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 Code of Practice 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.
    Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
    when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
    Parking Eye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.


    6. Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice too which Parking Eye must abide states that members of the BPA must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eyes website on the 14/03/2018, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 09/05/2018, when they sent me a Letter Before County Court Claim. I then sent them an email refuting the contents of the LBCCC and explained that I had not received any response to my initial appeal.
    • bren5086
    • By bren5086 5th Aug 18, 1:06 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bren5086
    sorry I was meant to go there this weekend with the kids but they were not well, so I don't have any photos except the one from the pcn, I didn't actually complain to the BPA I just ignored parking eyes letters and kept emailing them asking for a response to my rebuttal letter, they eventually sent me the popla code
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 10th Aug 18, 11:11 AM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,593 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    PICS ....





    http://tinypic.com/m/k4vva0/2


    http://tinypic.com/m/k4vv9v/2


    http://tinypic.com/m/k4vv9y/2


    http://tinypic.com/m/k4vv9s/2


    http://tinypic.com/m/k4vv9x/2


    http://tinypic.com/m/k4vv9z/2


    http://tinypic.com/m/k4vv9w/2


    Ralph
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,030Posts Today

8,494Users online

Martin's Twitter