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
    • atanks
    • By atanks 18th Jul 18, 10:32 PM
    • 30Posts
    • 7Thanks
    atanks
    PCN @ Brentwood Station full payment made before noticing I had a ticket
    • #1
    • 18th Jul 18, 10:32 PM
    PCN @ Brentwood Station full payment made before noticing I had a ticket 18th Jul 18 at 10:32 PM
    Have received two PCN's within two weeks, usually pay for the ticket upon arrival at my desk at the beginning of the week due to previous payment issues over text even though I have had an account for nearly 3 years... both times I have made full payment as the fee is fixed at a daily rate regardless what time you arrive but the warden has obviously changed what time they check the cars one as early as 8:20am?

    Could not find any threads where this specific scenario was the case have currently appealed both mentioning the payment reference and will update a response once they reply but wondered if this was worth raising further and making a complaint and if so has anyone actually had any success with this?
Page 2
    • atanks
    • By atanks 23rd Jul 18, 8:57 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    So received a letter this weekend which has confused me more than anything and has made me question that if I did not appeal whether they would actually have any chance of gathering my details based on the statements on the below letter and the fact they cannot approach DVLA or take anyone to court of the back of these fines.....

    "Unfortunately we are unable to progress your appeal further at present, as your are a third party making the appeal on behalf of the driver.

    Like many other business sectors, due to conditions imposed by the Data Protection Act we are prevented from disclosing or discussing information or issues with a third party such as yourself concerning an individual driver relating to the issue of a Parking Charge Notice

    We can however progress an appeal once we are in receipt of signed and dated written consent from the driver of the vehicle at the time of the issue of the Parking Charge Notice giving you full authority to act on their behalf and to receive any relevant information or data relating to them.

    You will appreciate the disclosure, discussion or exchange of information or data relating to an individual is a very sensitive issue these days and as such should not be divulged or discussed unless express consent by that individual is given. We look forward to receiving such consent by return enabling us to progress this particular appeal for review and action.

    If you are unable to divulge the above information, payment of £60.00 for the above notice can be made by of the below options......

    If payment or written consent is not recieved within 14 days from the date of this letter, the discount offer will expire and the full amount of £100.oo will become due. I have to inform you that if the outstanding amount remains unpaid we will follow a recovery process which includes passing the case over to a debt collector who will seek to recover the outstanding debt on our behalf and any reasonable administration costs incurred by the debt collector. We further reserve the right to use the courts to recover any outstanding parking charges due to us"


    Letter is dated 20th July so response needed by 3rd August, I feel I may have another one of these come through the post this week for the second appeal....
    • Thorsson
    • By Thorsson 23rd Jul 18, 9:07 AM
    • 146 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Thorsson
    So much for transparency! Thanks Thorsson - glad you know enough to probe deeper.

    Interestingly, the car park management contract between NCP and LUL defines car parks as:
    "the areas set aside at LUL or other TfL group stations for customers to park motor vehicles....." (my bold)

    and TfL group is defined as:
    "TfL and all of its subsidiaries..... "

    This suggests the contract includes non-LUL car parks. Though it's odd how this can happen when LUL's sister companies are strangers to the contract. Perhaps there are separate side contracts between LUL and its siblings?
    Originally posted by Handbags-at-dawn
    Possibly, but there are other possibilities, like an amendment to the contract to include any TfL subsidiary, or simply a working arrangement agreed in a side letter/email. Possibly you could find something out by a FOI request.

    TfL is a strange organisation. I once went to a meeting with them with a colleague - they had no less than 13 people at the meeting, all scribbling notes furiously. However, subsequent to the meeting not one of their actions was actually carried out and we ended up in a similar meeting a year later, with a different bunch of people...
    • Thorsson
    • By Thorsson 23rd Jul 18, 9:09 AM
    • 146 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Thorsson
    @atanks. I'll bow to the superior knowledge on this board, but that simply looks like an attempt to "blag" the name of the driver from you, which you should never give them. Have you checked the NEWBIE thread for this, as it seems like something that will have been tried before.
    • atanks
    • By atanks 23rd Jul 18, 9:35 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    Thanks for your help I think I will appeal again through the website using the below template on the newbies page...

    "Re PCN number:

    I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

    Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

    Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

    I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

    Formal note:

    Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

    Yours faithfully, "
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 23rd Jul 18, 12:43 PM
    • 146 Posts
    • 305 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    ...... that simply looks like an attempt to "blag" the name of the driver from you, which you should never give them..
    Originally posted by Thorsson
    That's exactly what it is.

    They are saying, in effect, "we are going to bombard you with debt collectors' letter etc, but you can't answer back because you were not a party to the contract". Looks like a bit of an own goal to me.

    Firstly, NCP are members of the BPA and must therefore abide by its code of practice. Rule 22 says: "You must have procedures for dealing promptly, fairly and efficiently with any communication from the motorist. The procedures must give drivers and keepers the chance to appeal a Parking Charge Notice." So if they continue refusing to hear your appeal, complain to Steve Clark of the BPA: Steve.C@britishparking.co.uk

    Secondly, adopting their own argument that they cannot "disclose or discuss information or issues with third parties such as yourself" without the driver's consent: they do not have the driver's consent; they therefore have no further reason to retain your personal data. Certainly they shouldn't be passing it on the debt collectors. So again, if they continue refusing to hear your appeal, you can point this out to them and require that your personal data is deleted from their records.
    • atanks
    • By atanks 30th Jul 18, 6:45 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    Thanks for that, have been waiting for both replies to my initial appeals before building something to send to "Steve Clark of the BPA

    The first appeal I received the letter through the post above as detailed earlier in the thread..

    Today I received an email from them which has confused me further as to what their process is...
    issued at Brentwood Station (LUL) on 18 July 2018 to vehicle with registration mark ....

    Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice number. We have considered the case carefully and have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds;

    At the time of issue, the Parking Attendant could not find details of a payment made by our Cashless Payment Service.
    I have searched for using this system, and although you had made a payment, the Parking Charge Notice had already been issued.

    The Terms and Conditions of which our services are provided are clearly displayed on entrance and throughout our facilities, including the requirement for all motorists to pay in advance for their parking. We are confident that all signage and the PCN are compliant with all industry standards and to the British Parking Association's code of practice to which we subscribe.

    You now have the following options;
    Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted amount of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will increase to the full charge of £100.00.
    Payment can be made:
    * Online, by visiting
    * By sending a cheque or postal order, made payable to National Car Parks Ltd to: National Car Parks Ltd. Notice Processing, PO Box 839, Northampton, NN4 4AL.
    * By Debit or Credit card (except American Express). Please call 0330 088 2902 and have your card details and the information held in this letter to hand.

    Alternatively, you can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service. If you wish to make an appeal to POPLA the forms are available on the website at The verification code you will need in order to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service is ...... Please note that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you will lose your opportunity to pay the discounted offer and the full amount of the parking charge will apply. Your appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this letter, any appeals to POPLA made after the 28 days will not be assessed. The independent adjudicator is unable to waive the parking notice because of mitigating circumstances and a decision will be based on facts and evidence only. If you have any trouble in appealing or cannot access the website please contact us on 01604 625 622.

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services ( provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

    If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.


    ps.. had to remove URL's due to being a newbie...
    • Redx
    • By Redx 30th Jul 18, 6:58 PM
    • 20,390 Posts
    • 25,752 Thanks
    Redx
    ok , if you now have a popla code then construct a popla appeal based on similar ones like APCOA at train stations like Manchester Victoria , or the METROLINK ones in Manchester where Care Parking are involved


    any that were appealed in the last 12 months are worth looking at
    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
    • atanks
    • By atanks 31st Jul 18, 8:10 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    Thanks for the tips. I've had a browse and found this popla appeal letter. Tweaked it slightly but it's relevent to my appeal - poor signage etc. Do you think it's good enough to send?

    1) APCOA not using POFA 2012
    2) Not ‘Relevant Land’ (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
    3) Amount demanded is a penalty
    4) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
    6) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver
    7) Lack of standing / authority from landowner



    1) Not using POFA 2012
    From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under railway byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

    2) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’

    Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:

    “(1) This schedule applies where –
    (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

    Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore APCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

    In addition, POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

    3) Amount demanded is a penalty

    Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

    4) Transferring keeper liability

    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.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), 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 Notice to Keeper.

    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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    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."

    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 2 above.

    5) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver

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

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

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
    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.
    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    6) Lack of standing / authority from landowner

    Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

    “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    Section 7.3 states: “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.''

    I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a TOC gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay APCOA (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and APCOA cannot enforce byelaws themselves, only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or site landowners can, by requiring the driver ONLY, to answer to a real fine at a Magistrates Court). APCOA have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put APCOA to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

    Yours sincerely,
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 31st Jul 18, 8:52 AM
    • 20,603 Posts
    • 32,519 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Looks ok to me. BUT why are you quoting the PPC as 'APCOA' when you're dealing with a PCN from NCP?
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 31-07-2018 at 8:56 AM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • atanks
    • By atanks 31st Jul 18, 3:59 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    ah ok! I did type a message asking if this was the template you was referring too... it seems I must of copy and pasted the rest out...

    So if I replace APCOA with NCP is that still applicable even for point one they do not reference the byelaws. However do rejected my claim due to not paying for my ticket in advance when the signage says within 10 minutes of entering the car park?
    • atanks
    • By atanks 2nd Aug 18, 8:10 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    Thanks for that, have been waiting for both replies to my initial appeals before building something to send to "Steve Clark of the BPA

    The first appeal I received the letter through the post above as detailed earlier in the thread..

    Today I received an email from them which has confused me further as to what their process is...
    issued at Brentwood Station (LUL) on 18 July 2018 to vehicle with registration mark ....

    Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice number. We have considered the case carefully and have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds;

    At the time of issue, the Parking Attendant could not find details of a payment made by our Cashless Payment Service.
    I have searched for using this system, and although you had made a payment, the Parking Charge Notice had already been issued.

    The Terms and Conditions of which our services are provided are clearly displayed on entrance and throughout our facilities, including the requirement for all motorists to pay in advance for their parking. We are confident that all signage and the PCN are compliant with all industry standards and to the British Parking Association's code of practice to which we subscribe.

    You now have the following options;
    Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted amount of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will increase to the full charge of £100.00.
    Payment can be made:
    * Online, by visiting
    * By sending a cheque or postal order, made payable to National Car Parks Ltd to: National Car Parks Ltd. Notice Processing, PO Box 839, Northampton, NN4 4AL.
    * By Debit or Credit card (except American Express). Please call 0330 088 2902 and have your card details and the information held in this letter to hand.

    Alternatively, you can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service. If you wish to make an appeal to POPLA the forms are available on the website at The verification code you will need in order to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service is ...... Please note that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you will lose your opportunity to pay the discounted offer and the full amount of the parking charge will apply. Your appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this letter, any appeals to POPLA made after the 28 days will not be assessed. The independent adjudicator is unable to waive the parking notice because of mitigating circumstances and a decision will be based on facts and evidence only. If you have any trouble in appealing or cannot access the website please contact us on 01604 625 622.

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services ( provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

    If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.


    ps.. had to remove URL's due to being a newbie...
    Originally posted by atanks
    So after sending me a letter to confirm the driver the quoted response online has done the trick so my fine on the 11th July has not been written off so a success!

    I am tempted to use the same template via the online appeal for my second fine on the 18th and if the write that off add it to the complaint as a complete waste of everyone's time giving the fines in the first place!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd Aug 18, 8:15 PM
    • 11,274 Posts
    • 11,833 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...so my fine on the 11th July has not been written off so a success!
    Originally posted by atanks
    Que?

    Detail is important.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Aug 18, 8:17 PM
    • 20,603 Posts
    • 32,519 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Makes no sense to me. Charge not written off, therefore a success? Are we doing this all wrong?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • atanks
    • By atanks 2nd Aug 18, 8:25 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    Sorry guys it HAS been written off...
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Aug 18, 8:35 PM
    • 20,603 Posts
    • 32,519 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Sorry guys it HAS been written off...
    Originally posted by atanks
    But there's no further detail. What caused the write-off? How did you find out?

    We're dealing with dozens of different cases every day. You know the intimate details of your own case, so you are able to fill in the blanks without writing them down - but we can't.

    So help us, in order that we can try to help you with any other case you have. Having us second-guess things in order to advise can only be potentially harmful to you
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • atanks
    • By atanks 2nd Aug 18, 8:48 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    So initially I appealed online for both fines a received (11th & 18th July) for the same reason of not having a ticket at the time of the inspection although it has been paid later that day on both occasions on arrival to work as I purchase a weekly pass which is not possible via their text service but is via their app/website.

    The signage text has recently been updated and mentions you now have to book your parking within 10 minutes of entering the car park but looking at the signage from google maps its has not change its physical presence so there is not clear indication the wording has changes plus I have been a customer for 3 years and received no information or warning about this change neither did we when they double their prices earlier this year!

    After my first appeal for the fine dated the 11th, I was initially sent a letter in which they asked for me to confirm who the driver was in which I replied with a second appeal online with the newbie page response and I received the below response from that appeal.....

    "Re: LU issued at Brentwood Station (LUL) on 11 July 2018 to vehicle with registration mark....

    Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice number.

    We encourage the responsible, safe and considerate use of our parking facilities by all our visitors, and occasionally we have to enforce these standards by issuing a PCN. On this occasion we have authorised the cancellation of this notice.

    No further action is required from you in respect of the PCN, Please note that all appeals are considered on their merits and that future appeals may not result in the cancellation of the PCN.

    You may now treat this matter as closed. "


    The second fine dated on the 18th was dealt with differently for some reason I received an email confirming it had been rejected for the following grounds....
    "Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice number. We have considered the case carefully and have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds;

    At the time of issue, the Parking Attendant could not find details of a payment made by our Cashless Payment Service.
    I have searched for using this system, and although you had made a payment, the Parking Charge Notice had already been issued.

    The Terms and Conditions of which our services are provided are clearly displayed on entrance and throughout our facilities, including the requirement for all motorists to pay in advance for their parking. We are confident that all signage and the PCN are compliant with all industry standards and to the British Parking Association's code of practice to which we subscribe.

    Alternatively, you can make an appeal to POPLA ...........
    "


    Looking to reply with the same newbie template as did not use this originally and wait for the outcome... if rejected will follow the POPLA route.

    Hope that is clearer....
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Aug 18, 8:59 PM
    • 20,603 Posts
    • 32,519 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Looking to reply with the same newbie template as did not use this originally and wait for the outcome... if rejected will follow the POPLA route.
    If NCP have rejected your appeal for your second ticket, I'm not sure there's anywhere else to go with them. You can try whatever else you wish with them, but I'd be surprised if they shifted their position.

    Do you have a POPLA Code for this second ticket?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • atanks
    • By atanks 11th Aug 18, 10:14 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    Yes they have rejected mentioning where they have already generated a POPLA code, so going to go ahead with the below to POPLA any recomendations before I do?

    I also have images of the old signage and the new signage where there placement and text size has not been changed even though there is a clear change in their statement. They previously in mention "ANPR monitoring your VRM and pay for your session before the next 04:29 after you leave the car park" it now details "You must pay for your parking 10 minutes after entering the car park" Would this be worth querying as to when this was changed and why? Also why was it not made clear to new and existing users?

    "1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

    2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (reference POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)

    3) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver


    1) Transferring keeper liability

    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.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), 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 Notice to Keeper.

    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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    2) Understanding keeper liability

    !!!8220;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 !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    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."

    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 2 above.

    3) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver

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

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

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
    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.
    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2!!!8221; letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3!!!8221; or even larger.''


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed."
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Aug 18, 11:12 AM
    • 20,603 Posts
    • 32,519 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    "1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

    2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (reference POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
    The headers you use to your appeal paragraphs don't match these. They need to be the same.

    not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.
    If you are arguing 'No Keeper Liability' you are going to have to spell it out precisely why to the POPLA assessor. They won't go looking for errors in the NtK (or its processing) just because you allege 'No Keeper Liability'.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    2) Understanding keeper liability

    !!!8220;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.
    You introduce the Henry Greenslade advice description at the end of appeal point #1, then place your header for appeal point #2, followed by HG's actual quote. It's all a bit of a mishmash.

    How much use have you made of the ready-made template appeal points from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3, because I think you'd form a better appeal by using the bulk of their contents as the basis for yours, then customising at the margins to reflect the circumstances of the parking you're dealing with.

    You seem to have missed 'No Landowner Authority', a Beavis rebuttal, a section on ANPR unreliability and failure to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'.

    Would this be worth querying as to when this was changed and why? Also why was it not made clear to new and existing users?
    Yes, put them to strict proof, because the BPA Code of Practice requires them to give adequate notice of any changes, especially aimed at regular users who (rightly) assume the status quo applies unless it is clearly brought to their attention. Para 18.10 of the CoP says this:

    18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.
    https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

    So some more work needed to make the appeal stronger as well as making it unattractive to NCP in putting the effort in to contest it.

    HTH
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • atanks
    • By atanks 28th Aug 18, 10:09 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    atanks
    Appreciate the comments and sorry for the delay got married last week!

    Have looked and studied the other POPLA appeals it seems the draft below for me would be the best arguments to pursue with based on previous successes.

    Will convert into PDF and send off tonight as coming close the to the 28 day cut off (is that correct?)

    On POPLA website I was going to select "Signage" and "Other" as these seemed most relevant to my case and my arguments below. Only part I am not 100% on is the NTK as I have obviously appealed the process with NPC first?

    Any help or advice would be much appreciated, not forgetting the help given thus far!


    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from NPC.

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
    2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
    To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by NPC. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

    The alleged infringement occurred on xx/xx/2016 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by xx/xx/2016. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

    The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

    2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, NPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put NPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between NPC and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to NPC.

    Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

    “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    Section 7.3 states: “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.''

    I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay NPC. NPC have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court.

    I put NPC to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

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

    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:

    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.

    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.
    I have included an old image titled “+++++” and new image I took on the day of the fine, clearly showing the difference in text but not the appearance being a customer of this car park for over two years there has been a clear break down in communicating the extreme changes in policy within their terms and conditions which it seems within the appeal from NCP was not clear to the refuser as they detailed a reason for rejecting as tickets have to be made in advance rather than as the terms and conditions refer to as within 10 minutes of entering the car park.

    4. 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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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.''
    Last edited by atanks; 28-08-2018 at 10:14 AM. Reason: Reply message to Bold
Welcome to our new Forum!

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

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,832Posts Today

7,404Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's Twitter poll: On Brexit, which is more important to you right now certainty or outcome. Ie would you prefe? https://t.co/En38QfRh3o

  • Many saying sexism or ego. My suspicion as someone who works in TV is that this is a format point. I'd think whe? https://t.co/AXfrv5YqKA

  • I do always ponder when watching apprentice why Lord Sugar is "Lord Sugar" but Baroness Bradey is Karen. #bbctheapprentice

  • Follow Martin