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
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 24th Jul 18, 1:54 PM
    • 36Posts
    • 8Thanks
    wishmun
    Advice needed
    • #1
    • 24th Jul 18, 1:54 PM
    Advice needed 24th Jul 18 at 1:54 PM
    Hello,

    Its my first post here :-D And we all know why it is.

    The driver of my vehicle parked on the private ground on (in)famous Aire Street, Leeds. I received PCN through the letter box few days after the event stating that there is a payment of £100 to be made. At the back the usual POFA 2012.
    Driver of my vehicle really wanted to pay by cash but the machine was saying NOT IN SERVICE. Driver was dumb enough to forget his phone and because it was Sunday he assumed its FREE... car was clocked for half an hour-ish. First appeal didn't go well. Template from parkingcowboys.co.uk/appeal-letter/ was used asking for a lot of information - none of the questions has been answered - they just responded with generic unsuccessful reply. Now there is around 2 weeks to appeal to POPLA.
    Within (only just) 28days from alleged event someone has gone to the same carpark and bought a ticket (which I now have) for the full (Sunday) day on my car registration number...
    Now how can this be approached? Out of interest I was reading the terms - I cant see the words there that one need to pay at the same day as one parked... so actually the parking was paid..

    Best regards,

    Mickey Mouse
Page 2
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Aug 18, 10:19 AM
    • 37,569 Posts
    • 84,504 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Do you have pictures of the ticket machine and signs? If so, do they tell a driver what to do if the machine isn't working?
    It's the operator's job to ensure the machines are working, not the motorists.
    If they don't, then you need to add that to your frustration of contract point.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 07-08-2018 at 10:25 AM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Aug 18, 10:35 AM
    • 37,569 Posts
    • 84,504 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Add this in to your point 3.

    "The contract would be expected by any reasonable person, to begin and end at the times stated on the Pay & Display ticket purchased, as this is the 'point of sale' as confirmed in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971, where the Court of Appeal held that that the ticket machine was the offer, the insertion of money was the acceptance and any contract began at that point in time."

    Since the ticket machine was broken, there was no acceptance of an offer, and therefore no contract can have been formed.

    If you don't have proof the ticket machine wasn't working, then you need to put parking lie to proof that it was.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 7th Aug 18, 10:51 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    @Le_Kirk: There is pay by phone option.
    Last edited by wishmun; 07-08-2018 at 10:57 AM. Reason: edit
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 7th Aug 18, 11:52 AM
    • 3,285 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    @Le_Kirk: There is pay by phone option.
    Originally posted by wishmun
    ..... and of course, everyone carries a mobile. You are just one of those who don't or didn't have it with you that day.
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 7th Aug 18, 12:11 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    hey ho
    Hi, I admire your sarcasm but that is not super helpful here. No, driver didn't have a mobile phone that day - if he had, we would never "met" on this forum. He had plenty of cash which he tried to put in that bleeming machine. He was waiting for super warden to show up and gave him all the gold he had on that day - never happened.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 7th Aug 18, 4:08 PM
    • 3,285 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Hmm, sarcasm not aimed at you but at the PPC, who assume wrongly that EVERYONE is fully tech-laden. However, my point, that you seem to have picked up, is that it could be used as a defence point in your POPLA appeal.
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 7th Aug 18, 4:24 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    oh
    Misunderstanding... I am in defensive mode at the mo on all levels so I picked up your reply wrong :-P
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 7th Aug 18, 4:33 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    @Fruitcake - I do actually have pictures of P&D box and also t&c board(s). And some are screenshots from (please do not laugh..) google.map. I will get back to the drawing board and I try to implement all your precious hints. Also I will attach some pictures and I guess I will just give you all the link to the .pdf as I dont think I can give here any photos/links.

    Cheers!
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Aug 18, 7:23 PM
    • 37,569 Posts
    • 84,504 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    You will need to embed the photos in your PoPLA pdf rather than links. That way the assessor is forced to see them.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 7th Aug 18, 8:45 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    @Fruitcake - will do. I will upload my drafty draft tomorrow by 11ish for your judgement ;-)

    Have a good night all!
    Last edited by wishmun; 07-08-2018 at 8:46 PM. Reason: edit
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 8th Aug 18, 9:17 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    Draft number.. 3?
    @Fruitcake - I added your sentence to my first point as it was lacking content - I hope that works. What do you think the order of the points should be - should I leave it like it is?
    PS. Pimped version of PDF with embedded pictures will be uploaded this afternoon/evening as I am buried with work...

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

    Dear POPLA,
    PCN Number: xxx
    POPLA Verification Code: xxx


    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd.

    I would like to point out that the pay and display machine was showing NOT IN USE at that time. Driver tried to put money in several times but to no avail, other drivers were in the same situation and gave up after few tries. There is no instruction whatsoever for what to do when machine is not functioning properly. Driver stayed with the car and was waiting for Parking attendant - sign on the wall states that this car park is patrolled 24/7.

    I believe the driver of the event could not make a payment due to broken ticket machine and no clear instructions.

    Therefore, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:


    1. Frustration of contract
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    6. 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

    1. Frustration of contract
    The contract would be expected by any reasonable person, to begin and end at the times stated on the Pay & Display ticket purchased, as this is the 'point of sale' as confirmed in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971, where the Court of Appeal held that that the ticket machine was the offer, the insertion of money was the acceptance and any contract began at that point in time. The contract could not be performed at that time as the Pay and Display machine was in “not in use” state and didn’t accept any coins from several people.

    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    As ParkingEye Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what ParkingEye is authorized to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorized to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case, I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA 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 authorization 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

    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.

    Separately, I can find no trace of a decided planning application relating to the Aire Street Leeds car park for the ParkingEye signage and cameras. Assuming that indeed no planning application was submitted or approved, then the signs hold no validity even were they properly sized, properly legible and properly placed.


    3. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was, I submit that I am not liable to any charge. In regard to the notices I have received ParkingEye has made it clear that it is operating under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act but have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    The PCN fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe the unpaid parking charges that they allege were unpaid at the machine.

    9(2)
    ’’The notice must -
    [b] inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the
    specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

    [c] describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;’’

    This NTK stated that ‘’either’’ there was not appropriate parking time purchased ‘’or’’ the vehicle remained longer than permitted (neither of which are ‘facts’).
    This NTK fails to describe those parking charges which they contend remain ‘unpaid’ by the driver.

    4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

    I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

    In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
    ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
    21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
    21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    • be registered with the Information Commissioner
    • keep to the Data Protection Act
    • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    • follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

    At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.


    5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

    The signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited number of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

    Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

    I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

    6. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces

    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:

    https://www.signs.com/blog/signage-101-letter-height-visibility/

    ''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.


    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully


    Mickey Mouse
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 8th Aug 18, 9:19 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    btw I changed the link in signage point from ebay to something from google as it was not working. In the final document I will actually do pictures/tables instead of links as advised by Fruitcake
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 9th Aug 18, 4:23 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    POPLA draft round 4
    Enjoy!

    LINK DELETED

    There you have it. I have 2 days till deadline...

    Please comment and advice if I need to move points/pictures about. In the final version I will pimp font/colours/shape of the .pdf to be more pro but I already like the look of it... I had an issue with this link from signage point:
    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    as doing a screenshot is not easy length wise.. and pasting content.. will add 10 pages (lol) of just increased fonts.. hmmmm
    Last edited by wishmun; 09-08-2018 at 9:10 PM. Reason: edit
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Aug 18, 4:37 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    Wishmun, I'm not too sure that many people will want to agree to WeTransfer's privacy policy, nor will they want to download your appeal to their device.

    Can you use something like dropbox instead?
    .
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 9th Aug 18, 4:53 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    Here you go :-D

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0z2lzu5cohz4sxf/POPLA.drafty.draft.pdf?dl=0
    Last edited by wishmun; 10-08-2018 at 10:05 AM. Reason: edit
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Aug 18, 5:07 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 were superseded by parts of The Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    .
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 9th Aug 18, 5:53 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    @KeithP -

    So changing the line:

    If they are not met then the contract would be deemed 'unfair' under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

    To:

    If they are not met then the contract would be deemed 'unfair' under The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    Will be sufficient or I need to find specific paragraphs? :_D
    Last edited by wishmun; 09-08-2018 at 5:53 PM. Reason: edit '
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Aug 18, 8:40 PM
    • 37,524 Posts
    • 21,732 Thanks
    Quentin
    You need to edit at least one of your photos if you want to be sure you cannot be identified


    You have left unique info on show in the photo p4
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 9th Aug 18, 9:00 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    @Quentin - are you talking about specific time and date? Hmmm I suppose thats easy to find in data base.. cheers. I will do it now and reupload.
    • wishmun
    • By wishmun 9th Aug 18, 9:09 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wishmun
    Re-uploaded draft as adviced:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0z2lzu5cohz4sxf/POPLA.drafty.draft.pdf?dl=0


    (I edited the link in original upload post too)
    Last edited by wishmun; 10-08-2018 at 10:05 AM.
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

630Posts Today

5,534Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @GillsSarah: Interesting! I always used to buy big name products cos I thought they?d be stronger. @MartinSLewis has changed my mind on?

  • RT @think_jessica: Think Jessica the Film 30 min doc/drama based on my mother?s true story. Narrated by @MartinSLewis is now live on https:?

  • RT @kelsher123: @MartinSLewis First time switcher! And no, it wasn?t as challenging as I thought???? A British Gas customer so no brainier. Th?

  • Follow Martin