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
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 8th Aug 18, 5:34 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Alexa777
    Britania Parking PCN - inappropriate display parking ticket ?
    • #1
    • 8th Aug 18, 5:34 PM
    Britania Parking PCN - inappropriate display parking ticket ? 8th Aug 18 at 5:34 PM
    Hi Everyone,

    First of all I want to say thanks to all of you who contributed valuable information.
    I have read the newbies thread but no info particular or I could refer for this case.

    I am here to ask what to write for the pending comments of my POPLA appeal.
    This is the last opportunity in this appeal.

    A PCN landed on windscreen when the driver parked at Southampton West Quay Retail car park while a valid parking ticket is obtained.
    However, the ticket was placed behind the drivers window instead of the dashboard.
    The reason is a float ticket is very likely to fall off from the dashboard when the door shuts.

    *There is a line on the ticket "Display clearly on dashboard this side up"*

    Clearly stated where was the ticket displayed when appeal with Britania and no surprise they declined the claim and an appeal submitted to POPLA with a photo of the ticket.

    Britania also uploaded their evidence with photos of the car that the ticket was not on the dashboard and other regulations.

    May I ask what to write in the comments please ?

    I have outlined three points in the initial POPLA claim as below but still been asked to provide comments on the operators evidence.

    1) A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and
    there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance
    with the BPA Code of Practice.

    Claimed as keeper in Britania appeal.
    Claimed as keeper in POPLA appeal.

    Much appreciate any help in advance !

    My comments added below, if no more advice received, this will be submitted.

    1. Britannia provided no evidence that they correctly transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper nor that PoFA was followed correctly.
    2. Britannia failed to provide NTK as no NTK ever received by the keeper nor in their evidence pack. Britannia didn!!!8217;t challenge this in my appeal then they are deemed to agree with this point.
    3. Britannia is drawing assumptions as to the identity of the driver in this evidence pack, however this is has never established and they have no evidence as to who was driving.
    4. Britannia failed to provide evidence of Landowner Authority. Britannia didn!!!8217;t challenge this in my appeal then they are deemed to agree with this point.
    5. Britannia as a member of BPA failed to adhere to the CoP B20.5b quote !!!8220;In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows!!!8221;. The photos show the attendant failed to check all the side windows.
    6. Signage !!!8211; The significant signage all over the car park only written !!!8220;Pay & Display!!!8221; without specify where to display.
    - Britannia failed BPA CoP B18.3 quote !!!8220;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!!!8221;. The Conditions of use does not meet the CoP requirements of the text size.
    - According to Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking, the driver is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. This is also supported by Olley v. Maryborough Court !!!8221;The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued". Hence the additional requirements written on the parking ticket is not legally binding.
    7. The driver had obtained and displayed as per the signage contract, there was no intention to defraud the Britannia.
    Last edited by Alexa777; 10-08-2018 at 8:34 PM.
Page 2
    • Castle
    • By Castle 8th Aug 18, 7:51 PM
    • 1,926 Posts
    • 2,619 Thanks
    Castle
    only POPLA or a judge in court can tell you if that small print on the ticket overrides the larger pay and display signage
    Originally posted by Redx
    Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking will say it can't.
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 8th Aug 18, 9:45 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alexa777
    @castle

    Is that mean whats on the ticket can not overides the larger pay and display signage ?

    My understanding of the Thornton v Shoe Lan Parking case indicates the ticket can overides the larger signage ?

    Would you please be more specific ?

    Thanks in advance !
    • Castle
    • By Castle 8th Aug 18, 10:03 PM
    • 1,926 Posts
    • 2,619 Thanks
    Castle
    Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking:-
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 8th Aug 18, 10:13 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alexa777
    No

    You cannot be compelled.

    (They will likely continue with their view of course)

    Are you sure about the initial appeal - do you have a copy to check yourself you never revealed the identity of the driver?
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Hi,

    No, I drafted the claim letter by the template provided from the newbies thread and followed the process advised.
    No additional comment but only the pdf version of my letter as the keeper and the photo of the ticket.
    Also Britannia's letter indicates who is the driver as the claim posted before they issue the NTK (which never been received).
    Hence I am sure I did not reveal who is the driver.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Alexa777; 08-08-2018 at 10:17 PM.
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 8th Aug 18, 10:35 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alexa777
    @castle

    Hi,

    Thanks for the detailed info.
    My understanding is when the driver saw the obvious signage and get the ticket, the driver only acknowledge what's on the signage but not the small writing of the full terms and conditions.
    Small writing failed the reasonable notification ?

    Also the ticket was issued by an automatic machine, the driver has no chance to negotiate the terms
    The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise.

    Quote "The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid."
    This also indicates what written on the ticket can not overrides the significant signage ?

    Would you please advice my understanding is correct and can be used in my comments ?

    Thank you.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Aug 18, 9:13 AM
    • 1,926 Posts
    • 2,619 Thanks
    Castle
    Thornton v Shoe Lane was about terms being introduced after the contract had been concluded:-
    "He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. The contract has already been made: see Olley v. Maryborough Court (1949 1 K.B. 532). The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case, Chapelton v. Barry U.D.C. ...1940 1 K.B. 532), on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued".

    This is further supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Paragraph 10 of the unfair terms schedule 2.


    The BPA code requires them, (under 20.5b), to do a visual check of the dashboard and windows; (note the plural of window).
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 9th Aug 18, 8:46 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alexa777
    Thornton v Shoe Lane was about terms being introduced after the contract had been concluded:-
    "He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. The contract has already been made: see Olley v. Maryborough Court (1949 1 K.B. 532). The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case, Chapelton v. Barry U.D.C. ...1940 1 K.B. 532), on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued".

    This is further supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Paragraph 10 of the unfair terms schedule 2.


    The BPA code requires them, (under 20.5b), to do a visual check of the dashboard and windows; (note the plural of window).
    Originally posted by Castle
    Thanks a lot !

    The big sign at the entry is written "Pay & Display(Extra Large Size) Terms and Conditions apply, see notices in car park for more details(Large Size)".
    Does this mean they can get away from the Thornton case ?
    I couldn't quite get my head around it.....
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 9th Aug 18, 8:55 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alexa777
    all of the above

    they have to abide by the BPA CoP and so appear to have failed that point mentioned above

    only POPLA or a judge in court can tell you if that small print on the ticket overrides the larger pay and display signage

    but as the driver paid and displayed as per the signage contract, there was no intention to defraud the PPC and so a judge might decide that its an onerous term and that the drivers intentions were honourable, meaning that the PPC should have cancelled when they were notified that a valid ticket was purchased

    this is known as de-minimis , so google it

    so get all of them points into a 2000 character rebuttal and then post the proposed rebuttal so it can be checked
    Originally posted by Redx
    Hi !

    I gathered a couple of points but seems over 2000 character...
    Is there any way I could make it shorter but still include all the details please ?

    1. Britannia has provided no evidence that they correctly transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper nor that PoFA was followed correctly.

    2. Britannia failed to provide NTK as no NTK ever received by the keeper nor in their evidence pack. This is in my original appeal where Britannia didn’t challenge then they are deemed to agree with this point.

    3. Britannia is drawing assumptions as to the identity of the driver in this evidence pack, however this is has never established and they have no evidence as to who was driving.

    4. Britannia failed to provide evidence of Landowner Authority. This is in my original appeal where Britannia didn’t challenge then they are deemed to agree with this point.

    5. Britannia as a member of BPA failed to adhere to the Code of Practice Appendix B20.5b quote “In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows”. The photos show the attendant failed to check all the side windows.

    6. Signage – The specific requirement of displaying ticket on the dashboard is only written on the parking ticket where the large “Pay & Display” signs are all over the car park.
    - Britannia failed BPA CoP Appendix B18.3 quote “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”. As shown in the photos that the Conditions of use written on the top of the ticket machine did not meet the CoP requirement of the text size.
    - Britannia claimed in the statement quote “All tickets dispensed at this site state “DISPLAY CLEARLY ON DASHBOARDTHIS SIDE UP” in addition to showing the issue and expiry times”. According Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking, the driver is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. This is also supported by Olley v. Maryborough Court (1949 1 K.B. 532) quote”The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case, Chapelton v. Barry U.D.C. ...1940 1 K.B. 532), on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued".

    7. The driver had obtained and displayed as per the signage contract, there was no intention to defraud the PPC.

    Thank you very much !!! in deed !!!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Aug 18, 8:59 PM
    • 9,949 Posts
    • 10,252 Thanks
    KeithP
    Once the contract is formed it cannot be altered without the agreement of both parties.

    What Thornton means is that having agreed to the terms of the contract, the PPC cannot alter those terms without the driver's agreement.

    One of the terms that the driver agreed to was that the ticket must be displayed.

    When the driver received the receipt from the ticket machine, that ticket attempted to vary the contract by stating exactly where the ticket should be displayed. Varying the contract in that way after payment had been made, and thus the contract formed, is simply not acceptable.

    That means that the driver displaying the ticket in a side window is acceptable simply because the agreed contract did not specify exactly where the ticket should be displayed.
    .
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 9th Aug 18, 9:11 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alexa777
    Once the contract is formed it cannot be altered without the agreement of both parties.

    What Thornton means is that having agreed to the terms of the contract, the PPC cannot alter those terms without the driver's agreement.

    One of the terms that the driver agreed to was that the ticket must be displayed.

    When the driver received the receipt from the ticket machine, that ticket attempted to vary the contract by stating exactly where the ticket should be displayed. Varying the contract in that way after payment had been made, and thus the contract formed, is simply not acceptable.

    That means that the driver displaying the ticket in a side window is acceptable simply because the agreed contract did not specify exactly where the ticket should be displayed.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    THanks KeithP !

    May I ask does the "pay & display" (which means ticket can be displayed anywhere in the car) terms still apply even there is a line written on the same signage "Terms and Conditions apply, see notices in car park for more details" ?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Aug 18, 9:14 PM
    • 9,949 Posts
    • 10,252 Thanks
    KeithP
    You tell me.

    I think you said it earlier, but what does the sign say about displaying the ticket?
    If it just says 'display', then you can display it anywhere you like - but it must be displayed.
    It is that what counts.

    Anything printed on the receipt cannot restrict terms already agreed.
    .
    • Alexa777
    • By Alexa777 9th Aug 18, 9:27 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alexa777
    You tell me.

    I think you said it earlier, but what does the sign say about displaying the ticket?
    If it just says 'display', then you can display it anywhere you like - but it must be displayed.
    It is that what counts.

    Anything printed on the receipt cannot restrict terms already agreed.
    Originally posted by KeithP

    Thanks again !!

    The entry sign says no more than "Pay & Display Terms and Conditions apply, see notices in car park more details"
    But the "condition" which written in a very small text on top of the ticket machine states "Tickets must be clearly displayed in the windscreen of vehicle".

    Hence I am not sure whether this case can still applied by the Thornton case.
    Means when the driver saw the entry signage, whether they agree with "dashboard" terms or not ?
    The signage did not clearly mention "dashboard" but refers there is a terms and conditions.
    Last edited by Alexa777; 09-08-2018 at 9:30 PM.
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

190Posts Today

1,439Users online

Martin's Twitter