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
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 6th Aug 18, 2:59 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 11Thanks
    Erinon
    ONE parking Solution
    • #1
    • 6th Aug 18, 2:59 PM
    ONE parking Solution 6th Aug 18 at 2:59 PM
    Hi,

    I've read the noobie guides and sent the default letter to OPS Appeal process. Via email I received back an rejected letter and the POPLA code. (as expected they ignored the please reply by post).

    I now need to do the POPLA thing as discussed in post 3 ion noobie thread.. It's at this stage that I am somewhat confused - I have tried searching for OPS, one parking solutions to find a similar case to copy and cant find much on OPS other than they don't seem to do much.
    • The driver of the vehicle parked in parking bays next to shops for 5 mins.
    • The "contravention date" was 7th July. The date of sending the NTK was 20th July - I received it on 25th July in the post as registered keeper- no windscreen ticket.
    • I understand from the landlord that the parking is for the tenants of the shops and the flats above not for customers.
    • Signage is poor and put up recently.
    • I
    have mailed the landlord but not got anywhere with them.
    If someone could help me find a POPLA appeal I can use to draft my reply I would be grateful.
Page 1
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Aug 18, 3:12 PM
    • 3,573 Posts
    • 5,934 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #2
    • 6th Aug 18, 3:12 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Aug 18, 3:12 PM
    The "contravention date" was 7th July. The date of sending the NTK was 20th July - I received it on 25th July in the post as registered keeper- no windscreen ticket.
    have mailed the landlord but not got anywhere with them.
    When you contacted either OPS or the landlord, did you mention who was driving?
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 6th Aug 18, 3:32 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    • #3
    • 6th Aug 18, 3:32 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Aug 18, 3:32 PM
    In my reply to OPS - no - I followed the template exactly.

    To the landlord - who I know socially - I stated, "I was somewhat surprised to receive a letter (ref: OPS26014) from One Parking Solution saying I was parked illegally when going to Costcutter."

    So strictly speaking I haven't.

    The landlords reply was not particualrly helpful - "We have arranged that the parking control is carried out by a company who will have their own complaints procedure to justify their actions. Basically there is no parking on site for shoppers, only on road parking."
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Aug 18, 4:16 PM
    • 3,573 Posts
    • 5,934 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #4
    • 6th Aug 18, 4:16 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Aug 18, 4:16 PM
    Basically there is no parking on site for shoppers,
    So no offer; no contract; and no breach of contract. OPS can go swivel then.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Aug 18, 5:22 PM
    • 10,238 Posts
    • 10,131 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #5
    • 6th Aug 18, 5:22 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Aug 18, 5:22 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 6th Aug 18, 6:16 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    • #6
    • 6th Aug 18, 6:16 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Aug 18, 6:16 PM
    So what do I need to do with regard to the POPLA appeal to make them go swivel
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Aug 18, 8:13 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 6th Aug 18, 8:13 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Aug 18, 8:13 PM
    I am on holiday...can't post regularly right now.

    But in a quiet moment just now, I found this summary of one I did that beat OPS re a PCN at Stanmer Park, Brighton, which is Council owned therefore not 'relevant land' and so keepers can't be held liable. This is only the skeleton points, and normally you would expand at length on each point (depends if this place the car was parked in your case is Council owned):

    - I am the registered keeper so I can't be held liable as the POFA doesn't apply on Council land.

    - driver not identified.

    - appellant not shown to be the person liable (use templates from the NEWBIES thread post #3).

    - no Notice to Keeper served, and if one arrives it will not be one that can hold a keeper liable as it must be non-POFA.

    - Complete opposite of Beavis case in that the signs do not offer a parking licence allowing parking at all for a price, as they say 'no parking' but are few & far between.

    - no signs were visible (use the signage template or add more stuff, such as if it was dark and the signs were unlit - WITHOUT implying who was driving, so not 'I').

    - BPA Code requires extra signs where a site is newly changed to alert drivers to restrictions. Not the case.

    - lack of grace period; predatory ticketing

    - Operators can't ban parking on the one hand, then allow it on the other, at a price. It's either contractual (an offer/consideration must flow between the parties) or it's trespass - only the landowner can sue over trespass.

    - Councils are not allowed to operate their public spaces as if they were private land - Robert Goodwill MP letter to all local authorities in 2014 made it clear that Councils can only use the TMA 2004, issue statutory 'penalties' & offer PATAS or the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, not pretend it's 'private land'! It's Council, not 'relevant land' - no keeper liability.
    Due to this, below, you need to add a section about grace periods (search the forum for POPLA grace observation Kelvin and copy one someone wrote earlier about a predatory PCN within less than ten mins):

    The driver of the vehicle parked in parking bays next to shops for 5 mins.
    and even if your area is not Council owned you need to spell out the dates and the fact the NTK arrived too late for keeper liability. You can find a template for that point by searching 'ParkingEye golden ticket POPLA' and changing the PPC to 'One Parking' instead, and the dates to suit.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Aug 18, 8:45 PM
    • 19,691 Posts
    • 31,162 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #8
    • 6th Aug 18, 8:45 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Aug 18, 8:45 PM
    Hello CM. Hope you're having a great break. Right here, it's the usual SSDD!
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 10th Aug 18, 1:26 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    • #9
    • 10th Aug 18, 1:26 PM
    Draft popla appeal - part 1
    • #9
    • 10th Aug 18, 1:26 PM
    Hi All,

    First off thanks to CM for replying while on holiday!

    Part 1 below - its too long to put in one post

    Thanks to all who posted. I have found most bits but not sure what to put in Section 2 "Driver not identified".

    All feedback welcomed

    POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
    Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX

    I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 20/07/2017 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – One Parking Solution – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 31/07/2017 and rejected via an email dated 06/08/2018. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

    1) Notice to Keeper not served in accordance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    2) Driver not identified
    3) Appellant not shown to be the person liable
    4) BPA Code requires extra signs where a site is newly changed to alert drivers to restrictions
    5) Lack of grace period; predatory ticketing
    6) Inadequate Signage and Signage non- compliant with BPA

    1. Notice to Keeper not served in accordance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) 'The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) - (b) (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

    Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

    Additionally, DVLA state in their Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges
    6.2 “Where a contravention is detected remotely (such as by cameras), the landholder may request registered keeper data from the DVLA immediately and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days seeking details of the driver or payment of the parking charge.”

    One Parking Solution’s “Notice to Keeper” states clearly that Date of Event = 07/07/2018 and that Date of Issue = 20/072018 and received by me on 25/07/2018.

    Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 section 9 states:

    (4)The notice must be given by—
    (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
    (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
    (6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.


    This represents a breach of the above noted statement, as it is clearly at least 17 days. The notice was not received by me, the Registered Keeper, until 25/07/2018, a total of 18days.
    On these grounds alone, this Parking Charge Notice should be rejected.

    2. Driver not identified.
    3. 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.

    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.''

    4. BPA Code requires extra signs where a site is newly changed to alert drivers to restrictions.

    The changes in parking conditions have been made recently. The signage is not clear and specifically the signage at the entrance is one side only and easily blocked by road side traffic.

    The signs themselves are inadequate and do not comply with BPA code of practice – as shown below in section 7.

    The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Control and enforcement of parking on private land and unregulated public car parks Version 7 - January 2018 states@

    “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.

    5. The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
    “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
    “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
    “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
    “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”


    The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

    Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):

    “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

    Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

    “Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

    The recommendation reads:

    “Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.”
    ***.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governan ce/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf)

    This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

    As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

    If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions (in this case in the dark with no lighting), decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

    It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question of approximately 5minutes is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
    a) The site is not well sign posted.
    b) Signage is not readable from within a vehicle.
    c) Visibility was blocked further by the traffic parked on the road.
    d) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (noncompliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
    e) The lengthiness of One Parking Solution’s signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in small font very difficult to read with out reading glasses

    All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

    • Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
    • Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.
    • Decipher the confusing information being presented.

    • Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
    • Return to car and safely leave the car park.
    !!!8195;
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 10th Aug 18, 1:33 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    Draft popla appeal - part 2
    Part 2.

    6. Inadequate Signage and Signage non- compliant with BPA

    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.

    Figure 1 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:


    Figure 1: Beavis sign

    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 and sparsely 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.

    One Parking Solution’s main car park signage on the Marlborough Court shopping site are inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see Figure 2 &3).


    Figure 2 Marlborough court sign - Close up

    The image in Figure 2 shows a close up of the main car park sign in the same conditions as the date/time for which the PCN has been issued. (N.B. This image was taken whilst standing at ground level looking up from the pavement as can be seen in Figure 3. The camera was held above head height so as to capture as close an image as possible, therefore it cannot be assumed that this is the view a person would have when standing below the sign. It should be emphasised that, when viewed from ground level, the text is even more difficult to read than it is in Figure 2).



    Figure 3: Marlborough Court sign – from Car

    Figure 3 shows a wider angle view of the same main car park sign, giving some context to the size/location of the sign shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows clear evidence that:

    • The sign is positioned high on the wall, making it difficult to read.
    • The terms are made even harder to notice and read due to the colouring of the sign and wall.
    • They are illegible from the car parking slots.

    Figure 2 and Figure 3 clearly show that One Parking Solution’s signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:

    “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

    These spaces are alongside the shops and have been used for a long period prior to these signs going up. They do not say shoppers are now no longer allowed to park.

    The text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2) is in tiny text that is impossible to read without artificial aids and great eyesight, in addition when dark you would also need a torch.
    Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:

    “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

    Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.
    Figure 4: Approach to the car park indicating lack of signage

    Figure 4 shows the approach to the parking. It cannot be reasonably assumed (particularly given this case took place in a car park which has been used by the public for some time without issue, and a customer of the shops could be reasonably expected to use car parking next to the shops) that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park, nor parked near one. Note that you cannot see the signage, and the flag advertising the wash point obscures what signage there is when flapping.
    Note also that the cars parked on the road will block all visibility of the signs on the left of the entrance.


    Figure 5 – Entrance view from road

    Figure 5 shows the approach to car park in an image taken from the road. As can be seen no signage is readable. The car park is where the white butchers van is parked. This image clearly shows no signage visible on approach to the car park itself. What limited signage there is, is so placed as to be obscured by traffic.

    The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix B) sets the requirements for entrance signs. The requirements the BPA sets in Appendix B, specifically:

    1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.
    2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.

    In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead (it’s not even visible), nor is it readable and understandable at all times. It may well be made of a retro-reflective material but this is irrelevant in this case as the positioning of the entrance sign is as such that vehicle headlights will never shine on it sufficiently so as to illuminate it.


    Figure 6: Angle of entrance sign in relation to approaching traffic

    Given this car park is accessed from a two-way street, would it not be sensible to angle l entrance signage towards oncoming traffic? Indeed this seems to be the method employed in various other car parks observed whilst researching for this case. Angling the signs in the direction of oncoming traffic would increase the likelihood of headlights illuminating them upon approach.
    The signage seems to be perfectly angles to avoid being easily seen from either direction regardless of obstruction from flags or other vehicles.
    The signage needs to be much higher to be seen.

    Figure 11: Lack of visible signage from where vehicle was situated

    Figure 11 was taken in the same lighting conditions as per the occasion for which the PCN has been issued. This provides clear evidence as to the lack of legible or even visible signage from where the vehicle was situated.

    It is therefore suggested once again that Figures 5, 6 and 11 serve to reinforce the earlier point made (in relation to Figures 2 and 3) regarding non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:

    “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

    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, the signs in the West Dyke Road car park do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on all but one of the signs within the car park site). Large 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 02/06/16, 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 Euro Car Parks 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:

    archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    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:

    ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-ViewingDistance-/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:

    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), in the same lighting conditions. 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.

    In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:

    “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”

    Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Euro Car Parks. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated.
    Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

    When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (too low, on the passenger side of the vehicle, easily obstructed), poorly angled to approaching traffic, and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 13th Aug 18, 10:44 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    POPLA appeal - draft
    Hi All,

    Has anyone had a chance to look through my POPLA appeal to OPS?

    Seeing how busy this board is I realise it might take some time.

    Kind regards
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Aug 18, 12:11 PM
    • 19,691 Posts
    • 31,162 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hi All,

    Has anyone had a chance to look through my POPLA appeal to OPS?

    Seeing how busy this board is I realise it might take some time.

    Kind regards
    Originally posted by Erinon
    At over 5,250 words long, extending to 14 pages of A4, it's a big ask - and it's a similar ask that we get from any number of posters almost every day of the week. It's relentless. And that's before we have even more bulky court defences thrown in (usually headed 'URGENT'!) for critical, detailed reading and analysis each day.

    As you rightly say the forum is extremely busy, it's holiday season (some regulars are away) and even at the best of times there are fewer regulars than you can count on the fingers of two hands.

    I've looked at the headings for each of your appeal sections and you seem to have most bases covered - other than 'No Landowner Authority' - any reason why?

    In the body of the appeal, #3 has no text after it. Any reason?

    Turning now to the one appeal point where you can deliver the fatal blow - No Keeper Liability. You must give the assessor all the ammunition you can deliver. If they just take the date of issue of the NtK, at face value, it could conceivably have been delivered by 21/07, and that will have been within PoFA limits. You say you received it on 25/07. I'm afraid, from recent experience, that where there is any element of doubt, POPLA do seem to be siding with the PPC.

    So you must emphasise that it was received on 25/07, and, if the PPC argues otherwise, demand they produce either 'Signed For' evidence of an earlier delivery, or a copy of their 'Certificate of Posting' from the Post Office. (They won't have either ).

    Do you have the envelope the NtK was delivered in? Was it second class delivery? That would be very useful evidence on your part.

    No Keeper Liability is the nail you have to really hammer home. The point you are making on this is a bit lost in all the usual copy and paste regurgitated detailed stuff we see (ad nauseam) from PoFA - and assessors must glaze over when they see it crossing their desks daily - and the real danger for you is that they miss this critical paragraph in the verbiage, so you're going to have to make sure it stands out from the crowd, or risk an oversight.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 13-08-2018 at 12:13 PM.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 13th Aug 18, 1:52 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    thanks
    HI Umkomaas,

    Thank you for taking the time - I'm sure I'm one of many who appreciate it.

    I'll go through it again tonight and emphasise the No keeper liability.
    Regarding the "No land owner authority" bit - when I wrote to the landlord - he basically said they'd got OPS in to stop people parking. I quote, "We have arranged that the parking control is carried out by a company who will have their own complaints procedure to justify their actions. Basically there is no parking on site for shoppers, only on road parking."

    I'll look at how to get that into it.

    Regarding point #3 - I have text relating to this, it was point #2 " Driver not identified" that is empty as I still need to find some template to work from.

    Thanks again
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Aug 18, 3:12 PM
    • 9,741 Posts
    • 10,095 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...it was point #2 " Driver not identified" that is empty as I still need to find some template to work from.
    Originally posted by Erinon
    That template is in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread under the heading:

    - The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Aug 18, 4:54 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Errrmmm...2017?

    Remove this awful introduction, can't stand people copying this bad grammer with 'I' followed by a comma (eeuurggghhh...where do people keep finding that intro?):

    I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 20/07/2017 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator, One Parking Solutions was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 31/07/2017 and rejected via an email dated 06/08/2018. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-08-2018 at 4:57 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Aug 18, 6:50 PM
    • 19,691 Posts
    • 31,162 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Regarding the "No land owner authority" bit - when I wrote to the landlord - he basically said they'd got OPS in to stop people parking.
    Did he? Did he say he'd signed a contract with OPS?

    I'd still stick in 'No Landowner Authority' and let them come back with proof. If they cannot find the contract or don't submit it, they are, as The Deep would say, Donald Ducked! Let them do all the work to prove their case - it's not your job to prove anything for them.

    It gives them extra work and may be enough to force them to capitulate.

    Regarding point #3 - I have text relating to this, it was point #2
    Yep, you're right.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 14th Aug 18, 3:12 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    Thanks -final version
    Thanks for feedback.

    I've corrected the english and filled in the gaps.

    Also clarified the main point about No Keeper Liability.

    1drv.ms/w/s!AtrZ4_98wJmblYAgMxNEVDFvAUIPDA

    Hopefully this is good to go now.

    Rgds
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 18, 5:00 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That is a lovely POPLA appeal, full of info & pictures - a work of Art! OPS will fold.

    You are missing a number 3, so I would just add:

    3. In addition to the late service of the NTK, the document is not compliant with Schedule 4, paragraph 9 in wording and noticeably, does not use the statutory warning about keeper liability in 9(2)f. Therefore it can be concluded that the operator knowingly served a 'non-POFA' NTK and as such, the POPLA Assessor need read no further, and cannot find me liable in law.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 14th Aug 18, 5:04 PM
    • 3,573 Posts
    • 5,934 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    the POPLA Assessor need read no further
    Kerching .... £27 in the bag and move onto the next one. The POPLA assessors must love you.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 15th Aug 18, 3:52 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Erinon
    POPLA appeal completed - now we wait
    Thanks Everyone.

    Appeal lodged under "Other "

    I'll let you know how it goes.
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

61Posts Today

2,435Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Lovely package on #newsnight just now about Brexit hitchhiking, livened up what has been not the most exciting show.

  • Is this is a serious tweet or a joke? Why did I mention he was a cyclist - because he was a cyclist. Eh? https://t.co/F1SP7UJZkH

  • How awful Mark. This is why those people who take risks on the road, have to realise while they think they're gamb? https://t.co/berU23vQOU

  • Follow Martin