PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ANPR PPC PCN for overstaying 20 min. limit behind Tesco Express.
ZigZagZog
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



Hello,

Wonder if the experts here could cast their eyes over the case below & advise me if I can beat this?

As the registered keeper I was mailed a PPC PCN for £100 (£60 if paid in 14 days) for overstaying the 20 minute limit behind my local Tesco Express. The date of the alleged crime was a couple of weeks ago, the notice to me less than a week later. I have just under a week left of the reduced 14 day period.

This is a drive in-drive out car park, no hourly charge to park, no ticket machine & no barriers. Photos of the signage, PCN & car park area below, if more photos or info required say the word. I spoke to a staff member in Tesco (not the manager) who told me the car park & it's rules are nothing to do with Tesco, they have no sway over the PPC, their customers get these all the time & he reckons the PPC make more money in fines per week than this busy Tesco Express!

Does the panel see any way to avoid paying this?

TIA.

PCN front


PCN back. The photo shows the PCN folded down to avoid showing pictures of the car & reg #.


The car park showing one entrance & the 2 signs at the entrances. The other entrance is just to the L, out of picture.

One of the 2 signs at the entrance.


One of the signs on the back fence of the car park.


This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 14:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 58)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 15:47
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OK, so you state that the Operator does not disagree that the signage is not illuminated at all, and as such they agree that it would not be possible for the driver to have seen any signage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 15:51
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



I've edited that post to include what they say about signage - don't know if you posted before or after the edit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 15:59
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Check the site plan and the photographs they submitted

Is it the correct car park ? I've seen pictures of the wrong one on several occasions
Do the signs in place match the plan ?
Are they genuine photographs of the signs or just the designs ?
Are they daylight photographs ? Are the signs lit ? At 17:46 on 18th November, the car park was dark
Point out that there are no entrance signs, especially if it's possible to enter the car park without seeing the signs to the left of the entrance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:41
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



My appeal as submitted in a pdf.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from Britannia Parking.
PCN: 1111111
POPLA verification code: 11111111111

On the 23, November, 2017, Britannia Parking issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for being ‘parked longer than the maximum time permitted’

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
2) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver
4) No photographic proof of where or when the alleged incident occurred.
5) PCN issued contrary to BPA guidelines on repeat offenders

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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 thedriver 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 theowner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was
entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.
I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an
individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. 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.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.''

2) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

It is suggested that Britannia Parking does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Britannia Parking be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:

18.1 “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 Britannia Parking. 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.

This alleged incident took place on a very dark night, November 18, 2017, the night of a new moon (i.e. no moon), in a car park without any lighting for either the car park or Britannia's signage. It is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are very poorly located, not in the sight line of motorists entering the car park and the terms and conditions are unreadable in the dark. Without street lighting or sign lighting these signs are only readable with the use of a torch and certainly not from inside an entering vehicle.

As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this 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.

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 poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. At night the signs are unremarkable and easily missed due to the lack of any lighting, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is unreadable in the dark. It is indisputable that having no illumination in the car park itself or on any Britannia sign can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be seen & read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

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 at the entrance do not mention ANY parking charge at all, this information only being imparted on signs at the dark blue perimeter of the car park, a considerable distance from many parking bays & invisible in the dark. 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, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one!

Common sense dictates for a sign to be effective it must first be visible. ''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.”
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 a dark 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 entrance 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.

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.

Based on these points, it is believed that Britannia Parking are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, visibility, clarity of terms and conditions and driver safety. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that Britannia Parking be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat at night on a night with a new moon, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely 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 to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

4) No photographic proof of where or when the alleged incident occurred.

There is no evidence provided by the operator that the contravention occurred at all, and if it did, when or where it occurred. Two photos of the vehicle with no landmarks or date stamps to place the vehicle at a location at specific times, merely showing a car on an unidentified roadway x 2. The location is not able to be identified from those images, the time of the alleged incident is not recorded and the car is not shown to be near any signage with any terms & conditions.

5) PCN issued contrary to BPA guidelines on repeat offenders

It is well known that Tesco and Sainsbury, for example, have clauses in their contracts that have certain restrictions on the activity of their parking contractors and that the right to levy charges on motorists is limited to repeat offenders. There is documented evidence of this, held by the BPA itself.

It was discussed at the BPA Forum meeting on 3rd November 2015 and the relevant section is reproduced.

Extract from BPA Forum minutes dated 3rd November 2015:
"Kate Maisey from Tesco provided the following information to the BPA Forum :
Tesco car parks are there for customers; their focus is often different to other organisations. They are seen as more lenient than other Operators, taking no action on the first offence, only on the second or third offence via an Operator.
The Operator they contract must follow Tesco rules for customer service as it is important to Tesco that the customers return. Tesco’s main business is selling items in their stores not parking."

The Principal's clear position is documented by the BPA.

It is, therefore, crucial that the contract terms are produced in order that POPLA can satisfy itself that the Operator has not acted contrary to its instructions but has the unrestricted authority to issue Parking Notices and take legal action in accordance with Paras 7.2 and 7.3.

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Britannia Parking is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Britannia Parking.

The operator is put to strict proof of all aspects mentioned above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 19:59
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Ok, we’re not going to do your job for you

Your task has been explained - do the initial gap analysis and obvious checks (ie don’t believe they haven’t lied to you ) so please, do those steps. Once you’ve reduced the list of possible questions down come back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:28
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



Just received hard copies of all the PDFs by signed for delivery!

Is that normal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 11:08
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Does it matter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:06
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 15:59) *
Check the site plan and the photographs they submitted

Is it the correct car park ? I've seen pictures of the wrong one on several occasions
Do the signs in place match the plan ?
Are they genuine photographs of the signs or just the designs ?
Are they daylight photographs ? Are the signs lit ? At 17:46 on 18th November, the car park was dark
Point out that there are no entrance signs, especially if it's possible to enter the car park without seeing the signs to the left of the entrance


Sorry Red,

I overlooked your post.

There is no site plan that I can see in either the online pdfs submitted by Brit to POP or in the hard copies I received this a.m. There is a very sketchy & poor photcopied aerial photo in the pdf to do with the property owner agreement. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt - based on aerial photo I think it's the car park in question

The Brit pdf (submitted to POPLA by Brit) showing the car park signage is too big to attach. It shows genuine photos of the actual signs on site. They are all taken in daylight, showing there is no means of illuminating them. They are not & cannot be illuminated at night.

One thing I noticed in the hard copies is (what I think) is the time & date of their entry & exit photos does not correspond to the alleged times & dates they are billing me for.

On the original PCN it states Entry Details: 18/11/2017 at 17:46:49 Exit Details:18/11/2017 at 18:29:05. In Brit's PCN LOG pdf (attached) the 4 listed jpgs referencing my reg # all have the same date of 21/11/2017 & the same time of 04:44:26. I've never seen that date or time before on any correspondence. I cannot open anything in the PCN LOG & don't see these photos anywhere in either their online POP response or the hard copies. I've only ever seen 4 thumbnails of the car in the original PCN, 1 each of it entering & leaving the car park with 1 each of a close up of the number plate. No date or time stamp is visible in the thumbs.

Attached File  6250442_PCN_LOG.pdf ( 34.52K ) Number of downloads: 285


I'm kinda thinking out loud here before writing a reply. Thanks again to everyone for their help.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 11:08) *
Does it matter?


I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

I wondered if everyone gets a signed for hard copy delivery or if I have boiled their piss in some way & they're making a special effort on my behalf.

Are they?

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 15:07
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Or theyve had issues with respondents not being able to access their submissions before now, etc. It really, really is of no consequence to what you do now. Its useless - literally useless - speculation

So the log has a time and date entirely different to the alleged events? Well that would be something to point out to POPLA....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 15:16
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 15:07) *
So the log has a time and date entirely different to the alleged events? Well that would be something to point out to POPLA....



Indeed, it would appear so.

I possess neither a legally trained nor razor sharp mind but would I be correct in thinking that perhaps Brit has screwed the pooch bigtime here & that is game, set & match?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 15:37
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Or thats when the log was updated. However, if they havent explained this, you just simply point out the POPLA that this cano tbe the parkign event in question as it relates to a different date and time, and therfore cannot meet the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable. You are at a loss why they included it, but given they havent evidenced the actual parking event at all, you ask the appeal is upheld - given this is an evidence based service.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 17:11
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



Here we go. So you don't have to keep going back & forth between different posts I've C&P'ed my original POPLA appeal below in pink, Brit's response in blue & my response to Brit in red.

I know absolutely SFA about POFA & keeper liability so TBH I have no idea what to say about about Point 1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge and would be very grateful for any thoughts as to what to say.

Any suggestions to add, delete, amend, cut etc welcome. It was sent to me on 21.02.18 so needs to go in soon.

Thanks.




Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from Britannia Parking.
PCN: 1111111
POPLA verification code: 11111111111

On the 23, November, 2017, Britannia Parking issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for being ‘parked longer than the maximum time permitted’

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
2) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver
4) No photographic proof of where or when the alleged incident occurred.
5) PCN issued contrary to BPA guidelines on repeat offenders

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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 thedriver 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 theowner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was
entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.
I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an
individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. 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.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.''

2) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

It is suggested that Britannia Parking does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Britannia Parking be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:

18.1 “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 Britannia Parking. 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.

This alleged incident took place on a very dark night, November 18, 2017, the night of a new moon (i.e. no moon), in a car park without any lighting for either the car park or Britannia's signage. It is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are very poorly located, not in the sight line of motorists entering the car park and the terms and conditions are unreadable in the dark. Without street lighting or sign lighting these signs are only readable with the use of a torch and certainly not from inside an entering vehicle.

As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this 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.

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 poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. At night the signs are unremarkable and easily missed due to the lack of any lighting, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is unreadable in the dark. It is indisputable that having no illumination in the car park itself or on any Britannia sign can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be seen & read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

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 at the entrance do not mention ANY parking charge at all, this information only being imparted on signs at the dark blue perimeter of the car park, a considerable distance from many parking bays & invisible in the dark. 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, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one!

Common sense dictates for a sign to be effective it must first be visible. ''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.”
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 a dark 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 entrance 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.

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.

Based on these points, it is believed that Britannia Parking are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, visibility, clarity of terms and conditions and driver safety. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that Britannia Parking be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat at night on a night with a new moon, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely 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 to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

4) No photographic proof of where or when the alleged incident occurred.

There is no evidence provided by the operator that the contravention occurred at all, and if it did, when or where it occurred. Two photos of the vehicle with no landmarks or date stamps to place the vehicle at a location at specific times, merely showing a car on an unidentified roadway x 2. The location is not able to be identified from those images, the time of the alleged incident is not recorded and the car is not shown to be near any signage with any terms & conditions.

5) PCN issued contrary to BPA guidelines on repeat offenders

It is well known that Tesco and Sainsbury, for example, have clauses in their contracts that have certain restrictions on the activity of their parking contractors and that the right to levy charges on motorists is limited to repeat offenders. There is documented evidence of this, held by the BPA itself.

It was discussed at the BPA Forum meeting on 3rd November 2015 and the relevant section is reproduced.

Extract from BPA Forum minutes dated 3rd November 2015:
"Kate Maisey from Tesco provided the following information to the BPA Forum :
Tesco car parks are there for customers; their focus is often different to other organisations. They are seen as more lenient than other Operators, taking no action on the first offence, only on the second or third offence via an Operator.
The Operator they contract must follow Tesco rules for customer service as it is important to Tesco that the customers return. Tesco’s main business is selling items in their stores not parking."

The Principal's clear position is documented by the BPA.

It is, therefore, crucial that the contract terms are produced in order that POPLA can satisfy itself that the Operator has not acted contrary to its instructions but has the unrestricted authority to issue Parking Notices and take legal action in accordance with Paras 7.2 and 7.3.

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Britannia Parking is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Britannia Parking.

The operator is put to strict proof of all aspects mentioned above.


Dear Sir/Madame,

Please find enclose our detailed statement for Parking Charge Notice 6250442.

On Saturday 18th November 2017 vehicle R218JPH entered Twyford – Twyford House car park at 17:46pm. This car park uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The car park is not manned.

The data is processed against the pictures recorded from the ANPR camera and records the entry and exit time. This car park has a maximum stay of 20 minutes at all times. The vehicle had entered and exited over this maximum period and the system generated a Parking Charge Notice.

The vehicle was clocked with an entry time of 17:46pm and exited at 18:29pm, 22 minutes over the maximum time allowed.

Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Approved Operators Scheme, Code of Practice at all times. Our car parks are regularly audited and our signage at this car Park has been approved by the BPA. We meet all the requirements for our signage as advised under section 18 and 19 for England and Wales or Section 28 for Scotland, of the BPA’s Code of Practice, in regards to signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions.

Therefore we consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw your attention to the terms and conditions of the parking contract that is on offer. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they have read the terms and conditions, by leaving the vehicle in the car park the driver has broken the terms and conditions and therefore we believe the Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued.

We have authorisation to act on behalf of the landowners, ensuring that the terms and conditions are adhered to. We have full authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on their behalf. A copy of the contract with the land owner has been enclosed to show that we have a contractual agreement to manage the parking facilities, with all sensitive company information redacted.
We are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Approved Operator Scheme, the BPA Code of Practice, at all times. Section 13 – Grace Periods, details that we must give the driver a reasonable period of time to enter the car park and purchase a ticket or leave the car park. We have a 10 minute grace period at this car park. If the driver has not purchased a ticket or left the car park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued for breaching the terms and conditions of the car park.

We uploaded the Parking Charge Notice data on 21/11/2017 and requested DVLA Keeper details on 22/11/2017. Keeper details were added to the Parking Charge Notice on 23/11/2017 and a letter was then generated and posted on 23/11/2017.

We first received an appeal on 16/12/2017 from the keeper of the vehicle. The appeal case was investigated to see why a Parking Charge Notice was generated. We responded on 11/01/2018 advising it was issued correctly.


In point 1) .................


In point 2 of my appeal I stated Britannia Parking (BP) lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing. I requested BP provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner. They have not done this.

The info provided by BP in their 'agreements twyford house 2018.pdf' is a very poor & illegible in parts photocopy and has all info to do with the alleged landowner, signature and printed name, redacted. It could be signed by anyone.

Again, in point 2 I stated:

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

In their ''agreements twyford house 2018.pdf' Plan of the car park BP has failed to comply with this request. The photocopy of the aerial photograph they have supplied purporting to be the car park in question is so poor as to be unidentifiable and there is no definition of any boundaries that I can discern. It could be anywhere.


In point 3 of my appeal I stated BP's Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver. Common sense and the basic guidelines of contract law would seem to dictate that for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated.

The alleged parking infringement took place on a very dark night, November 18, 2017, the night of a new moon (i.e. no moon), in a car park without any lighting for either the car park or BP's signage, which is not & cannot be illuminated as no lighting is provided for any sign. I requested that BP showed how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat at night on a night with a new moon, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submitted that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking, especially as the bottom of the lowest sign is 159cms off the ground (the other is 190cms off the ground) and both are 6 metres away from the entrances so are not swept by a car's headlights on turning into the car park, and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. They have not complied with this request, not even offering photos taken on any dark night in any phase of the moon. Indeed they do not address the question of darkness, lighting or visibility on a dark night at all. I can only interpret their reluctance to provide night time photos as conceding my point & supporting my position that their signs are all but invisible at night and cannot be read.

To aid the appeal panel in making up their own minds as to who is right on the question of legibility of BP's signs in the dark I have taken six photographs, three sets, one each in daylight and one each in the dark, of the entrance signs and of a perimeter sign. The photos of each set of signs were taken from exactly the same place, as can be seen from the identifying landmarks. I'm going to stick in 3 sets of 2 each pictures here of daylight & night time pictures (essentially black with a tesco store sign) of the car park & entrance signs.


In point 4 of my appeal I stated BP had not provided any photographic proof of where or when the alleged incident occurred.

In their E letter response to my appeal of 21.2.2018 BP still declined to provide any photos. In their initial communication to me, the PCN in 6250442 PCN LETTER.pdf there are four photos, one each of the front & rear of the car and two close-ups of the reg number, front and rear. No dates, no times, no identifying geographic identifiers, no signs or terms and conditions appaer in any photo.

More worryingly for BP's, apart from these four photos which could have been taken anywhere at any time the only reference to any photographs anywhere in BP's submitted paperwork is to be found in their 6250442 PCN LOG.pdf, where four photos are listed, all showing a date stamp of 21.11.2017 and time stamp of 04.44.26, entirely different from the time the alleged parking infraction occurred.


In point 5 of my appeal I claimed the PCN was issued contrary to BPA guidelines on repeat offenders whereby Tesco have a policy well known to BPA members of only penalising repeat parking offenders.

"It was discussed at the BPA Forum meeting on 3rd November 2015 and the relevant section is reproduced.
Extract from BPA Forum minutes dated 3rd November 2015:
"Kate Maisey from Tesco provided the following information to the BPA Forum : Tesco car parks are there for customers; their focus is often different to other organisations.
They are seen as more lenient than other Operators, taking no action on the first offence, only on the second or third offence via an Operator.
The Operator they contract must follow Tesco rules for customer service as it is important to Tesco that the customers return. Tesco’s main business is selling items in their stores not parking."
The Principal's clear position is documented by the BPA.

BP has not addressed this point at all and it is my contention they have not because the PCN was issued in error and they have no evidence my car has been a repeat offender. As the registered keeper I have never received a warning from Tesco staff, or a previous PCN from BP.

A final point is the question of a grace period as explained in paragraph 8 of BP's E letter.pdf of 21.02.2018. In it BP states "We have a 10 minute grace period at this car park. If the driver has not purchased a ticket or left the car park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued for breaching the terms and conditions of the car park."

This car park has no ticket machine, no ticket is required, available or on sale as can clearly be seen from BP's own photographs contained in Popla pack-1.pdf. Coupled with the wrong date and time stamp on the photos in their PCN LOG.pcn there appears to be some doubt as to the accuracy of BP's record keeping. Is it possible that BP have made a mistake, got the wrong car at the wrong time in the wrong car park?

To summarise, BP's failure to comply with Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP to provide as requested a signed and dated contract with the landowner and the definition of the land on which they may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined is in itself grounds for granting my appeal. Further strengthening my cause, BP's failure to provide as requested any photos AT ALL of their signs at night might lead someone more cynical than me to conclude they haven't provided any because it severally undermines their case. BP's has been requested to and failed to provide any photographic proof of the alleged parking infraction which puts the car in question at the time and place they allege. Coupled with the confusion and doubt thrown up by having a date and time on the four photos in their PCN log which does not correspond to any event in this case raises serious questions over the BP case, especially when they themselves appear to be confused as to the specifics of which car park they are talking about and whether it has a ticket machine or not. Finally, they have completely ignoring my point concerning Tesco's policy of only penalising repeat offenders.


This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 17:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 20:09
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



Night & day pictures of the site & signs showing just how dark it is at night without any car park lighting or sign lighting.














This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 20:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 11:04
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



Regarding point 1 in my POPLA appeal is it as straightforward as this?

What I said:

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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 thedriver 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 theowner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was
entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.
I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an
individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. 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.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.''

Britannia's reply:
BP have not responded on this point. They have ignored it, not answered, not countered and not addressed this point at all & so I must conclude they agree they have not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.


This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 11:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 13:27
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You state that as they clearly agree with you, that the keeper has no liability, the appeal must be upheld. This is an evidence based process, and the operator has provided no evidence

Your comments need to be short bullet points.

You can’t add evidence at this point. The popla site told you this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 14:34
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



Thanks nosferatu,

I wondered whether the additional photos could be argued to be expanding on evidence already entered or if they consider it new.

Is this pared down version OK?

In point 1)
BP have not responded on this point. As they clearly agree with me that the keeper has no liability, the appeal must be upheld. This is an evidence based process, and the operator has provided no evidence.

In point 2)
The info provided by BP in their 'agreements twyford house 2018.pdf' is a photocopy and has all info to do with the alleged landowner, signature and printed name, redacted. It could be signed by anyone. The operator has provided no evidence.

BP has failed to provide evidence of the boundaries of the car park because the photocopy of the aerial photograph they have supplied purporting to be the car park in question is so poor as to be unidentifiable and there is no definition of any boundaries. It could be anywhere. The operator has provided no evidence.

In point 3)
I stated BP's signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver and requested they provide photographs taken at night. They have not complied with this request and do not address the question of darkness, lighting or visibility of their signs at night at all. I interpret their reluctance to provide night time photos as conceding my point & supporting my position that their signs are all but invisible at night and cannot be read. The operator has provided no evidence.

In point 4)
BP have not provided any photos with date stamps, time stamps or identifying geographic identifiers.

Confusingly the only reference to any photographs anywhere in BP's submitted paperwork is to be found in their 6250442 PCN LOG.pdf, where four photos are listed, all showing a date stamp of 21.11.2017 and time stamp of 04.44.26, entirely different from the date and time the alleged parking infraction occurred. The operator has neither explained this nor provided any evidence.

In point 5)
BP has not addressed this point at all. The operator has provided no evidence.

Fianlly, BPO raises grace periods in para 8 of their E letter.pdf of 21.02.2018 - "We have a 10 minute grace period at this car park. If the driver has not purchased a ticket or left the car park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued for breaching the terms and conditions of the car park."

This car park has no ticket machine, no ticket is required, available or on sale. Coupled with the wrong date and time stamp on the photos in their PCN LOG.pcn there appears to be some doubt as to the accuracy of BP's record keeping.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 22:04
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



I need to submit this 7 day response tomorrow so if any of you have anything to add please speak up. It's now or never.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZigZagZog
post Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 10:18
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,544



Once again I say thanks to the forum.


Your appeal was successful

As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action.


Decision Successful
Assessor Name xxxx xxxx
Assessor summary of operator case

On xx xxxx 2017, vehicle XXXXXXX was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking for longer than the maximum stay time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) They say that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge . 2) They say that Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass . 3) The appellant says that the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver. 4) No photographic proof of where or when the alleged incident occurred. 5) They say that the PCN issued is contrary to BPA guidelines on repeat offenders.
Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Restrictions and terms and conditions apply at all times to all vehicles…Maximum stay 20 minutes…This car park is regularly patrolled by mobile parking enforcement teams…£100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which: Exceed the maximum stay period.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time. Whilst I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my assessment will focus solely on the signage on site as this supersedes the other grounds. The appellant says that the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.11 states “[i]
where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. The operator has provided an evidence pack to rebut the appellant’s ground of appeal and this contains photographic evidence of the signage on site. These photographs have not been time and date stamped for me to be able to confirm that the motorist would have been aware of the terms and conditions of the car park when parking their vehicle. As a result, I am unable to confirm the sign in question was on site before the appellant parked their vehicle. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

[/i]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 13:44
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Well done, Britannia are rank amateurs, why supply photos with no date stamps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:18
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here