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
    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 22nd May 18, 8:37 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 0Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    Parking Eye - Parking Charge Notice - Help Please!
    • #1
    • 22nd May 18, 8:37 PM
    Parking Eye - Parking Charge Notice - Help Please! 22nd May 18 at 8:37 PM
    Hello all, any help here would be appreciated. Previously had success appealing a bus lane fine by making a post so going for it again...

    Abersoch Golf Club - Beach car park on 13/05/18 I!!!8217;ve have been issued a parking charge notice for £100 (early payment of £60 which I have till the 31/05/18)

    I don!!!8217;t know if Parking Eye have any legal right to write to me and demand the money, seems to be the common theme with these posts. There!!!8217;s some on here for the same car park on here but nothing at the same early stage, only ignored the letters or started exchanging emails back and forth so I am hoping someone will enlighten me with, most likely, a link to an existing post which will be my perfect appeal... fingers crossed, and thanks in advance for anything you can suggest - even if it!!!8217;s !!!8220;yeah you should just pay that!!!8221;!

    Mike
    Last edited by sweeney_1990; 23-05-2018 at 1:20 PM.
Page 1
    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 22nd May 18, 8:45 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    • #2
    • 22nd May 18, 8:45 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd May 18, 8:45 PM
    Sorry, on the back it states !!!8220;the signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, stares tbat tbis is private land and that the car park is managed by ParkingEye LTD. in addition the signage states that, as a paid car park, a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment. The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.

    By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking gate is now payable to ParkingEye ltd. (as the creditor)!!!8221;

    It then goes on to talk about the Protection of Freedoms Act - siting paragraph 9(2) (b) of schedule 4, and the same thing with (f) - which appears significant from what I!!!8217;ve seen on other posts
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd May 18, 12:30 AM
    • 59,419 Posts
    • 72,569 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 23rd May 18, 12:30 AM
    • #3
    • 23rd May 18, 12:30 AM
    So just send the usual template appeal from the newbies FAQS thread, the one at the top of the forum called:

    NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST

    And then you will get a POPLA code, and we usually win at POPLA.

    At Abersoch there was always an issue with the signs in the trees, being GREEN! Illegible and unable to even see them to have accepted £100 'penalty'. Are you local enough to get incriminating photos of very green signs in very green trees, in readiness for POPLA stage?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 23rd May 18, 7:35 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    • #4
    • 23rd May 18, 7:35 AM
    • #4
    • 23rd May 18, 7:35 AM
    Unfortunately not local no. Do you think this has legs in an appeal then??
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 23rd May 18, 7:43 AM
    • 36,248 Posts
    • 20,515 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 23rd May 18, 7:43 AM
    • #5
    • 23rd May 18, 7:43 AM
    As #3.

    Send the template appeal in the Newbies FAQ thread

    You do need to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 23rd May 18, 8:14 AM
    • 9,690 Posts
    • 9,525 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 23rd May 18, 8:14 AM
    • #6
    • 23rd May 18, 8:14 AM
    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.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 23rd May 18, 9:14 AM
    • 2,813 Posts
    • 3,505 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 23rd May 18, 9:14 AM
    • #7
    • 23rd May 18, 9:14 AM
    If we thoguht it woudl go against you, someone woudl have said so
    However you KEEP identifying the driver. STOP doing that. YOU are the keeper. The driver parked...
    No I, she, he, him, her.
    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 23rd May 18, 11:08 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    • #8
    • 23rd May 18, 11:08 AM
    • #8
    • 23rd May 18, 11:08 AM
    Ok great, thank you for the advice, Iíll sort the appeal out and keep you guys updated.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 23rd May 18, 12:25 PM
    • 7,992 Posts
    • 7,848 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 23rd May 18, 12:25 PM
    • #9
    • 23rd May 18, 12:25 PM
    Sweeney, please edit posts #1 and #6 along the lines suggested by nosferatu1001 in post #8.

    The parking companies trawl forums like this waiting for people to trip themselves up and can use your posts against you.
    .
    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 10th Jul 18, 8:32 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    So after a few letters I have not had my appeal rejected and advised if I want to appeal further to do so with POPLA.

    The letter states how no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, however it was purchased, twice, with gaps in the time (effectively not enough time was purchased), Iím not sure if this is relevant or not but thought Iíd mention it.

    Any help on the popla appeal would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks

    Mike
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 10th Jul 18, 8:36 PM
    • 8,705 Posts
    • 9,057 Thanks
    pogofish
    Please read the detailed advice on preparing a POPLA appeal in the Newbies Sticky - its all there.
    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 10th Jul 18, 8:59 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    There really aren!!!8217;t many for this car park. Will this template work, and will I need pictures of the signs?

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5666127&highlight=parkingeye+aber soch+golf+club
    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 10th Jul 18, 9:18 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    Iíve found this too, but all these people seem to understand how this works far more than I do. Iím really struggling.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t107733.html
    • I like free stuff
    • By I like free stuff 10th Jul 18, 9:52 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    I like free stuff
    I got a £100 parking fine from Parking Eye for spending 11 minutes SAT in my car in an empty car park taking a call because there was nowhere on the street to pull over. I appealed and it was rejected and POPLA have rejected it too. Does anyone have any experience of not paying still or going to court? I!!!8217;m hoping the judge looks at the ridiculousness of a £100 fine for being still in my car in an empty car park that has a £2.40 day rate and is annoyed with the company for wasting their time! I!!!8217;m concerned about court costs though and losing. How much are we typically talking?
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 10th Jul 18, 9:57 PM
    • 597 Posts
    • 706 Thanks
    claxtome
    I like free stuff court costs if you lose are around £200.
    I wouldn't say to pay though and fight and with this forums help 99% of people win.

    Please, please though start a thread of your own!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 18, 9:58 PM
    • 59,419 Posts
    • 72,569 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I got a £100 parking fine from Parking Eye for spending 11 minutes SAT in my car in an empty car park taking a call because there was nowhere on the street to pull over. I appealed and it was rejected and POPLA have rejected it too. Does anyone have any experience of not paying still or going to court? I!!!8217;m hoping the judge looks at the ridiculousness of a £100 fine for being still in my car in an empty car park that has a £2.40 day rate and is annoyed with the company for wasting their time! I!!!8217;m concerned about court costs though and losing. How much are we typically talking?
    Originally posted by I like free stuff
    £175 - max £200, all told, if you lose a ParkingEye case. No big deal, no CCJ, nothing.

    Please delete your post, it's not fair to hijack this thread, it's not a general discussion topic for all.

    Hit delete, please, don't post on other people's threads.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 11th Jul 18, 1:28 AM
    • 8,705 Posts
    • 9,057 Thanks
    pogofish
    Iíve found this too, but all these people seem to understand how this works far more than I do. Iím really struggling.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t107733.html
    Originally posted by sweeney_1990
    If you want Pepipoo advice, then go to Pepipoo.

    The Newbies Sticky is far more up to date than that thread.

    Please stop thrashing about/ovethinking things and stick to the Newbies Sticky.
    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 12th Jul 18, 3:48 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    I!!!8217;ve got a few posts bookmarked, the posts on the newbies thread seem a little different to my appeal but am I best using lots of each that are relevant to me, seems as though making your appeal long is generally good?! Going to sort it tomorrow as I have half day in work, so will post my thoughts on here afterwards before I send it. My deadline is next week so want to get the appeal sent this weekend and any advice greatly appreciated
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 18, 3:51 PM
    • 59,419 Posts
    • 72,569 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Search as keywords:

    Abersoch Golf POPLA
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sweeney_1990
    • By sweeney_1990 16th Jul 18, 2:49 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sweeney_1990
    Ok so i don't know if I've gone over the top here. I've avoided lying and stuck to the technicality arguments I've found in various forums. any suggestions would be great, and I will send tomorrow hopefully all being well:


    POPLA APPEAL vs ParkingEye Ė POPLA Ref: ####### Ė PCN: #####/#####

    I am appealing the above PCN based on the following grounds:

    1) I was NOT the driver
    2) The charge is a penalty and breaches the CRA
    3) Failure to state how data will be used
    4) No evidence of land owner authority
    5) Insufficient and unclear signage
    6) Insufficient Notice of the parking charge



    1) I was not the driver only the registered keeper:

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. 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. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot. Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015: Understanding keeper liability. There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass. Well Parking Eye have not passed due to the non-compliance with the POFA as shown in point #2. Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

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



    2) The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA & is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis.

    This situation is an 'ordinary' contract, a simple consumer/trader transaction with a ticket for parking being purchased in good faith and produced by a faulty set of machines and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position. At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment in 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' it was held: ''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement. ĎíAnd at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''...where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty,íí At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedinís speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary contracts with a transaction and tariff: ''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.'' This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedinís four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

    Clearly a charge out of all proportion to the tariff - which was paid in any case for the time actually parked and the driver left before expiry of the ticket - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man, regardless of whether in the small print, the sign may have said somewhere 'enter the full registration'. A huge charge arising under the excuse of such a minor term is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA, enacted after the Beavis parking event) supports a consumer's position: - Under Schedule 2 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' it includes: ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.'' As this charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.



    3) The ANPR signs (if any) fail to state how the data will be used

    This is a BPA CoP breach as well as an ICO breach and means the driver could not make an informed decision. As there are no signs to explain otherwise, the ANPR system cannot secretly calculate the time from entry from the road. In a modern day of data protection, incorrect use of someoneís information has, and should, have huge ramifications. The driver did not agree a personal contract in which the use of any data was agreed upon.




    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 - 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 - 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 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 be 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 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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    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:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

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

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''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.''

    Therefore, 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:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    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.
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

3,191Posts Today

9,385Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @samgio1997: So glad you talked about the importance of taking out holiday insurance on this morning as a few years ago my auntie's pare?

  • RT @mmhpi: "Two years ago, I was in the fortunate position to be able to found @mmhpi... I?m incredibly proud of the work the team there is?

  • It means you should either have an annual policy in place, or book a specific single trip policy when you book https://t.co/oBDx8TmzQU

  • Follow Martin