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
    • smaugc6
    • By smaugc6 11th Jun 18, 1:02 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 3Thanks
    smaugc6
    Hi, Please help not sure what to do at this stage.
    • #1
    • 11th Jun 18, 1:02 PM
    Hi, Please help not sure what to do at this stage. 11th Jun 18 at 1:02 PM
    Hi,



    I would appreciate any help from yourselves.


    I have just come back from a month long holiday and I have received a LBCCC from Parking Eye .


    The story goes, I was working in a certain town and couldnt find reasonable priced parking, so I asked the place I was working for to advise on the best parking location. I was advised the local supermarket car park as it is free. I parked there twice from 9-5 on two seperate occasions and bought some food from there each time to have for lunch. As I am now aware there is a 1 hour limit and a notice stating this.



    Anyhow after a months holiday I return home looking through all letters and find several parking invoices and most recently a LBCCC dated less than 14 days ago. I head read though a few threads but im a little confused.



    Do I ignore this? (a friend did and didnt receive a court claim in 4 months)
    Do I appeal to the PPC in view of receiving a POPLA code? (as I understand parking eye will not give a POPLA code beyond 28 day, however there is nothing on POPLA to say theres a time limit?)
    Do I repond via a new email address to Parking eye quoting my Ref with this email:



    ParkingEye Limited PO Box 565
    Chorley
    PR6 6HT
    REDACTED

    Your Ref:REDACTED

    Dear Sirs,

    I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim on REDACTED.
    Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

    Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

    As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
    6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
    8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
    11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

    Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


    Yours faithfully




Page 1
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 11th Jun 18, 1:23 PM
    • 9,202 Posts
    • 9,601 Thanks
    pogofish
    • #2
    • 11th Jun 18, 1:23 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jun 18, 1:23 PM
    Post Two of the Newbies Sticky deals comprehensively with LBCs.

    If you are still thinking that ignoring might be an option, then you need to read the whole thread carefully to inform yourself properly on the current state of play for private parking.
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 11th Jun 18, 1:37 PM
    • 3,355 Posts
    • 5,157 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #3
    • 11th Jun 18, 1:37 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Jun 18, 1:37 PM
    Ignore Parking Eye at your peril, maybe the muppet where you were working will present your court case for you!


    They have caused you a big headache now as Pogo says you need to use the advice on here not cobble together a cut and paste defence which mixes up PPC and solicitor etc!


    PE are the ones that issue POPLA codes if you have current ones use them.


    If you have an LBC you have gone past the appeal stage for that charge.



    "Do I ignore this? (a friend did and didnt receive a court claim in 4 months)"

    Stop considering what other people have or have not got or done, a PPC has up to 6 years to make a claim, but you will know all this when you read the newbies thread.
    • smaugc6
    • By smaugc6 11th Jun 18, 2:24 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    smaugc6
    • #4
    • 11th Jun 18, 2:24 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Jun 18, 2:24 PM
    Thank you guys for clarity on this.


    I will draft a reply for the LBCCC.



    Looking through the letter in more detail I have noticed a seperate invoice for each date I parked. The LBCCC is only in relation to the earlier date so I take it that I can still appeal to PE and receive a POPLA code for the latter invoice?
    Last edited by smaugc6; 11-06-2018 at 2:33 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jun 18, 3:14 PM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,767 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 11th Jun 18, 3:14 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Jun 18, 3:14 PM
    if the latter invoice is less than 28 days old, then you appeal it on their site with the template , as keeper


    if it is older, you can try an appeal but are unlikely to succeed


    PE do not have to give out popla codes if people miss the 28 day deadline, in which case it doesnt matter if popla will accept it because without a popla code you cannot appeal - period


    anything at LBCCC stage means this 28 day deadline has been passed and nothing apart from a court order will induce PE to issue a popla code


    treat each incident separately
    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
    • smaugc6
    • By smaugc6 11th Jun 18, 3:43 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    smaugc6
    • #6
    • 11th Jun 18, 3:43 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Jun 18, 3:43 PM
    The latter invoice is less than 14 days old!


    It was issued 40 days after the "Date of event" and by ANPR cameras, im pretty sure reading somewhere if it was issued past 14 days I would not be liable to pay thier invoice, but cant seem to find it . Quick google search and ive foud this


    Dear sirs,

    I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time and date of the alleged overstay. I note the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 section 9 states that for keeper liabilty to apply the keeper must receive a notice to keeper within 14 days. The date of the incident was REDACTED and your notice to keeper is dated REDACTED and delivered sometime thereafter. According to my abacus the notice to keeper should have arrived no later than REDACTED.

    In any event your charges are penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

    Should you reject my appeal please supply a popla code and be warned that i will constitute any further unwanted contact as harassment and will sue as per Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) , Roberts v Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 882 (11 June 2013) and Bank of Scotland v Johnson (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 982 (19 June 2013).

    Yours blah blah



    On Parking eye's appeal form online there is a drop down box asking to state if you are the registered keeper etc with you details below, would this impair my case with the earlier invoice shall I wait this one out and try to get a POPLA code for the earlier invoice?
    Last edited by smaugc6; 11-06-2018 at 4:04 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jun 18, 4:21 PM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,767 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 11th Jun 18, 4:21 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Jun 18, 4:21 PM
    I would advise you to use the template letter from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum, as KEEPER, on the PE website

    the only changes I would make would be to add a short paragraph stating that

    due to the time lag between the incident date and the pcn then POFA2012 does not apply and so there is no keeper liability and you should cancel this spurious charge

    so only do what the NEWBIES FAQ tells you to do, nothing else

    you can and should do this before the 28 days deadline is up

    in this new case, FORGET about anything else going on , as I said deal with each incident separately


    they then have 35 days to either cancel or issue a popla code
    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
    • smaugc6
    • By smaugc6 11th Jun 18, 4:43 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    smaugc6
    • #8
    • 11th Jun 18, 4:43 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Jun 18, 4:43 PM
    I have appealed both invoices on PE website, I shall update you guys as everything unfolds.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Jun 18, 6:33 PM
    • 11,012 Posts
    • 10,980 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 11th Jun 18, 6:33 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Jun 18, 6:33 PM
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 18, 2:02 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You CANNOT safely rely upon just appealing a PE PCN that is at LBCCC stage!

    The appeals 'team' (what the heck were they thinking when they took that 'job'?!) are not the team that issued the LBCCC and you are in danger of getting a court claim soon, as it will look to the Enforcement Team that you haven't replied to them.

    Email this week, urgently:

    enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

    ...and tell them (mentioning the 'LBCCC' PCN number ONLY, get it right and put it in the subject line of the email) you have been away and the LBCCC is the first you know about the matter. As such, you have appealed on their portal and will be complaining to the Head office of the Supermarket and you want a POPLA code, please, as you have been afforded no opportunity for appeal or ADR.

    PE will issue a late POPLA code - but only if you ask the right team, in time. But if you ONLY appeal a LBCCC one, you are not talking to the right 'team' and run a risk of a claim within weeks while you wrongly assume it's frozen under 'appeal'.


    Do I ignore this? (a friend did and didn't receive a court claim in 4 months)
    Big deal. There are six years for anyone to sue anyone for contract breach, in this Country!

    If it was Aldi or Asda he/she might be safe, as we've never seen PE sue over those sites.

    If Morrisons (yours or your friend's) search the forum for the very obvious keyword - one word - and do the email everyone else does to get M's to cancel within days. Morrisons will do so even for people with no receipt but obviously you don't blab about the parking abuse (because it WAS abuse).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-06-2018 at 2:05 AM.
    • smaugc6
    • By smaugc6 29th Jul 18, 9:50 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    smaugc6
    To follow up I have emailed enforcement within that week to notify them, thank you Coupon Mad.


    I have received POPLA codes for both dates,



    here is a draft POPLA appeal, for the 2nd date where NTK served after 44 days, please can you critique my appeal. I will modify this for the 1st date.



    Thank you.



    POPLA
    I wish to appeal the invoice left to me the Keeper of the vehicle, that is claimed to be involved in the alleged incident. Parking eye wish to pursue me though the POFA 2012 Act. My grounds for appeal are declared below, I also wish to make the reader aware that each ground of appeal carries equal significance in this appeal and invite parking eye to address each point individually.
    Point 1. No Driver Identified
    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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the Keeper throughout, and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    Point 2. No Keeper Liability Under POFA 2012.
    The NTK fails to comply with the POFA 2012.
    To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
    The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on REDACTED. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so !!!8220;given!!!8221; for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose !!!8220;working day!!!8221; means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The !!!8220;Letter Date!!!8221; stated on the PCN is REDACTED and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been !!!8220;given!!!8221; on REDACTED (i.e. outside of the relevant period). This is a
    total 44 days after the alleged incident, the operator has no recourse for such a failure of compliance, one can only assume that absolute disregard for law has led to this situation.
    The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:
    The notice must be given by!!!8212;
    warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8212;
    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
    (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f). The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.
    Point 3. Insufficient/Forbidding signage thus no contract can be reasonably formed
    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:

    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 where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

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

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

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

    link

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

    link

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


    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    link

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

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

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

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

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

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

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

    link

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

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
    Point 4. No Land owner Authority
    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
    This concludes my POPLA appeal.

    Yours faithfully,
    XX
    Last edited by smaugc6; 29-07-2018 at 9:55 PM. Reason: gg
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Jul 18, 10:01 PM
    • 11,353 Posts
    • 11,883 Thanks
    KeithP
    So what has happened in the last six weeks between 11th June and now?

    Just posting up a draft PoPLA appeal when you last post was:
    ...I shall update you guys as everything unfolds.
    ...is confusing, at best.
    .
    • smaugc6
    • By smaugc6 29th Jul 18, 10:37 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    smaugc6
    Not much, I have just received POPLA codes around 2 weeks ago. luckily I was able to get them outside the 28 days PE give without much fuss. I havent heard anything back from Enforcement regarding the LBCCC so I assume thats on hold.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Aug 18, 5:21 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Why have you not complained to the retailer/landowner, as MUST be done BEFORE POPLA?
    • smaugc6
    • By smaugc6 9th Aug 18, 1:03 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    smaugc6
    Hi guys, I!!!8217;m just here to update on some good news.

    I have complained to the retailer, never really heard back from them said they would investigate.

    Anyhow I have submitted both POPLA appeals and won them both!

    I wish to thank everyone who has helped me, honestly my ignorance would have had me end up in court.
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

3,062Posts Today

6,276Users online

Martin's Twitter