Tell the gym to cancel the PCN or you will cancel your membership. Follow up on your threat if it isn't cancelled.

You will find a number of template appeal points in post 3 of the NEWBIES that you can copy and paste. It isn't complicated, you just need time to go through it. It isn't a quick read.
I doubt you will get any other advice other than to use the NEWBIES.
It's a shame you revealed the identity of the driver in your initial appeal. That cannot now be helped, but you have thrown away a valuable appeal point.

The FAQ you find too confusing will become clear if you take more time to understand the game you are caught up in. You do it a disservice by dissing it which other newbies reading your thread should ignore!!


Sadly you came here too late to stop you making a fundamental error, but now concentrate on the one post there you have been directed to


Take it in chunks and reread it till you are no longer confused.


Then study the links to POPLA appeal near templates and construct your own.


Post it here for comments before sending it

Ok thanks guys. I get the impression I should use a template which is very long and which is likely the make the reader give up and accept my appeal. Is that right?

By the way, I don't believe the gym have the ability to cancel the PCN, from speaking to them. Surely NCP sent me the ticket and it's not controlled by the gym?

No.


Read the FAQ as advised till you understand the process. It takes a lot more than 3 minutes!

All explained in the FAQ!!


Escalate your complaint till someone takes notice at the gym

You won't know until you ask. If enough people cancel membership because of parking scammers, the gym will want to take this up with the landowner, so it's still worth complaining and finding another gym.

Leave negative feedback on social media to warn others about this scam, and please complain to your MP. It really is the only way this will ever get stopped.

You use ALL the template appeal points available to you. You only need the assessor to agree with one point for you to win.

Post your draft here for checking before you submit it.

I have spent at least an hour reading and searching the forums and there is so much info now that it's confusing

Spend another 50 and you will be either more or less confused, but as you probably twigged in the first few minutes, they are trying to scam you.

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.

Course they do. Who do you think contracted NCP there?

Thanks to everyone who replied so far. Very helpful. I am just trying to find an appeal template for a POPLA appeal which is relevant to my situation, which is that I was entitled to park at the NCP carpark because I was in the gym next door, but I simply forgot to enter my registration in the gym computer and this is why I got the "invoice".

Could somebody briefly advise me what the main crux of my appeal could be. I am struggling to find an appropriate template and a lot of the other points, like signage etc don't seem relevant to my case.

Please help.

See #9 above.

And keep on at the gym to get this cancelled

Thanks Quentin, but I am no longer a member of the gym. I have an email from the gym manager, confirming my attendance at the gym that day, thus confirming my eligibility to park there that day for free. She told me to appeal. I don't believe they have the knowledge/experience to be able to get the PCN cancelled. They certainly didn't give me that impression.

I am hoping that somebody can give me a main argument about my eligibility to park there for free, which I can lodge in my POPLA appeal.

That won't win the case, though, because the contravention is not putting your VRN in, and that can't be retrospectively overcome at POPLA by showing authority to park. Especially if you forgot (DON'T say that at appeal!). Your version WILL NOT WIN.

The template stuff you see in #3 of the NEWBIES thread, might win, that's why we do it like that and not your way, not the story of what happened.

I would start your POPLA appeal points, by putting NCP to strict proof of the existence of the keypad inside the Gym, not saying you are a regular, nor that you knew it was there! Put them to prove the keypad exists, as point #1.

Then the template stuff. Show us.
Sorry but do you want to win, or lose?

Your story is now largely irrelevant. You want to look at recent POPLA appeals and talk about things like poor signage, no landowner authority, none compliance with POFA and other usual appeal points.

Then you can throw your story in. Make them prove the keypad exists. Make them show it's clear what you have to do etc.

The Newbies thread has links to winning appeals. Much of it will be cutting and pasting.

I have drafted the following appeal to go to POPLA from the NEWBIES section. Please could I have some feedback on its content.

Just as a recap:-
Date of incident - 11/6/18
NCP PCN sent by NCP - 20/6/18
NCP appeal submitted by myself on their website - 27/6/18
NCP appeal rejected by NCP - 10/7/18

Any help would be appreciated, many thanks. Can I add any more points?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

Subject: Parking charge reference number: XXXXXXXXXX, Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from National Car Parks Limited (NCP) on the following points:

1.Misleading and forbidding signage; non-compliance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice; parking conditions not clear; no clear offer made.
2.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.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

1.Misleading and forbidding signage; non-compliance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice; parking conditions not clear; no clear offer made.

Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the BPA AOS Code of Practice version 7 discuss the clarity needed to make drivers aware of a parking charge. Additionally, consumer contract law demands clarity and transparency in the making of an offer.

In particular the BPA AOS Code of Practice version 7, section 18, lays down guidance for signage including the need for entrance signs at the entrance to the parking area and specific parking terms signage, which should be placed 'throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle' and which should be 'easy to see, read and understand'. These are reasonable standards to apply when making an assessment as appellant of the clarity, usefulness and visibility signage in place at the location.

In this case, there is an entrance sign as you approach the car park, however, the site entrance sign is at such a position that it is unreadable when entering the car park and from the car when approaching the site, and is out of, or only peripherally in, the vision of a driver approaching the car park. It is impossible for any driver to read the content of this the only sign throughout all floors of the car park, A clear breach of BPA AOS 18.3

The use of lines on the ground and other markings to give drivers instructions must also be considered signage and so , under the BPA AOS Code of Practice should also be "conspicuous". This is not the case in this car park.


2.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

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

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 £100, 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:

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.''

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:

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.

In addition, under consumer contract law, terms must be clear and fair and the offer must be communicated clearly. There can be no acceptance if the other party is not fully aware of the offer. Given the paucity, on the one and only signage giving terms and conditions, and the lack of any signage applying to the parking areas as a whole, it is suggested that a clear and fair offer was not made adequately enough for a contract to be formed. , there can be no offer and so no contract.

In view of the evidence I have seen for this appeal, therefore, I put this operator to strict proof of the appearance of their signs at the date and time of the alleged contravention, from the drivers'; perspective (not just stock images of a sign in isolation), from photographs taken in the same lighting conditions. I require the operator to demonstrate that full terms and conditions, clearly applying to the parking area as a whole, were clearly displayed and easy to understand for a driver in the context in which the vehicle was used and parked, and that an offer was clearly made and accepted in the circumstances.

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.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - 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


In Summary

For these reasons and from the evidence I have seen as registered keeper and appellant I believe the operator has not lawfully issued a notice to keeper and is not compliant with contract law, The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or the BPA AOS Code of Practice, version 7.


For these reasons I appeal the operators decision to levy a parking charge as it is unfair and unlawful.

Nothing about keeper liability?

Nothing about The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge?

Nothing about the keypad - as mentioned in post #15?

and add a numbered bullet point menu before the main appeal points

Thanks KeithP,
Do I still put the keeper liability wording in, even though I appealed on the NCP website? I can't remember the fields I completed on the NCP website, but from reading the posts above, haven't I admitted I was the driver?

Keypad - I also admitted that I entered my registration on previous occasions, so can I still ask NCP to prove that the keypad exists, when I am confirming I have already used it?