PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

parking ticket for parking in the disabled bay - should I pay or appeal
spurga
post Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 23:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,751



Thank you for your advice.

This post has been edited by spurga: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 01:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 23:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 01:07
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816





First of all edit your post and refer only to stuff like, "The driver needed to...The driver arrived....i.e. leave out the first person. Never name the driver

The general advice is to ignore this until day 26 from the issue date and then appeal as the Registered Keeper only and wait to see if they send a fully POFA compliant NTK. Check with a fine tooth comb when it comes to see it meets all the requirements.

Take a picture of the area at the same time in the dark. If it really is difficult to see any any bay markings then that will help in any defence should that be necessary. Were there any posted signs? If so upload pictures so we can see what they say since poorly list signs or markings are likely to be your only defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jo Carn
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 13:29
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 617
Joined: 22 Mar 2016
Member No.: 83,162



Agree about editing your post as you NEVER admit to being the driver. Definitely agree about getting photos.

Don't agree about sending a letter. Let them send the Notice to Keeper first.
Also, please post the paperwork you were given. Remove number plate. Leave everything else.

Charges like this are subject to a piece of legislation called Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Go to Chapter 9 of schedule 4. You will see that the documentation is very prescriptive and is mandatory. That means if they get it wrong, it has no legal standing. This is also why you wait for the Notice to Keeper - it's another chance for them to get it wrong.

Don't be intimidated by any paperwork you get. These are not parking fines as you understand them (such as from the council). In fact, if you read carefully, the paperwork will not say Penalty Charge but Parking Charge. They generally get their money by scaring people into submission. We are here to help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:05
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,615
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (spurga @ Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 23:39) *
Can I appeal on the grounds of his error or also that it was dark and hard to see the markings? Or shall I just suck it up and pay? Thank you for your advice.

You can appeal on whatever you like - but they will reject.

They aren't currently litigious and I wouldn't pay them in these circumstances. Start collecting evidence should they decide to take action - they have 6 years to pursue.

See the above advice about frustrating the process.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:10
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,603
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



Jo, the OP is recommended to appeal as registered keeper at day 25/26 when a NtD is involved.

PoFA requires the PPC to obtain RK details from DVLA for the issue of the NtK. In some cases, the PPC is so overjoyed at having RK's details without having to contact DVLA that they forget it's part of the Act. It adds another appeal point.

However, I agree about ensuring the driver is not identified and the original post should be EDITED to refer only to 'the driver.' This is CRUCIAL.

Draft your initial appeal, based upon reading other recent cases on here, and post it here for fine tuning.


--------------------
Cabbyman 9 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:19
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,770
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



POFA is the reason for sending the appeal as the keeper so that it is received just before the last day allowed for appealing. The PPC will be so pleased to not have to spend £2.50 at the DVLA to retrieve the keeper's details. They may not then send a Notice to Keeper and without a notice to keeper there can be no keeper liability. . If they do send a Notice to Keeper but haven't contacted the DVLA then they again can't hold the keeper liable. If they do send a Notice to Keeper than it also has to comply with the requirement of POFA. Doing things this way has been known to work.

This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:25
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,603
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



Once the NtK has been received, the RK should contact DVLA on SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk to ask if details were obtained between dates xx/xx/xxxx and yy/yy/yyyy.


--------------------
Cabbyman 9 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spurga
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 22:27
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,751



Here are the photos at the car park and the PCN.
The Reg is correct, the car make and colour on the ticket are wrong.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:04
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,603
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



Make and colour are irrelevant in this instance.

Appeal at day 25-26 as RK to get POPLA code. After they reject, E mail DVLA as in post #7 above, to find out if they have applied for RK details.

Have a read of this:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822


--------------------
Cabbyman 9 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spurga
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 14:33
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,751



Thank you for your advice.

I appealed on Day 26 using a standard template from NEWBIE Sticky board on MSE (registered keeper).

Today they sent me this reply.
What do I do? Ignore and wait for the official notice to the keeper?
Respond and ask for POPLA code again?

Thanks for your help.

QUOTE
Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Unfortunately, we are unable to process your appeal as you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the PCN being issued, as per the above Legislation. Could we please kindly request the driver to appeal against the Parking Charge Notice if they wish to, so that we can process an appeal, as we actively seek to process all valid appeals.

If we do not hear from the driver within 7 days, appeals department will accept the appeal from yourself as we assume you will have taken responsibility for the PCN.

Please note if you are unable or unwilling to provide the driver’s details and the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This Notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.

Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid.

Should you identify someone, who denies they were the driver, we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid.

Could you or the driver please get back to us within 7 days from the above date, failure to do so will result in the PCN being passed to a Debt Collections Agent after 28 days from the date of issue, where further charges will be added.

They can also appeal online through our website at www.ptlappeals.co.uk.

Yours sincerely

Appeals Dept.


UNQUOTE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 14:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,940
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Just a trick to get the drivers name, now if you do not reply are they going to pay £2.50 to the DVLA or not ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spurga
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:03
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,751



So, do I just ignore them? Wait for NTK?
When should POPLA code come through? I guess I do not need to chase for it, or do I?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:22
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,770
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Just ignore. If a NTK arrives then check with the DVLA on who has accessed your details and when. You give them a start and stop date for the search.

If no NTK arrives then if they are BPA members then wrtie to them telling them that their Code of Practise says that if no response received within 35 days then an appeal is assumed to have been accepted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:29
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,615
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Indeed, they've taken the bait. (Assuming you've given them the keeper details to save them accessing the DVLA)


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
s360
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:38
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 211
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,453



Just do nothing and wait. They state they will process the appeal if they don't hear from the driver within seven days. Wait until day 56 after the event or day 35 from the end of the seven day period they mention, whichever comes last. If you hear nothing then you can respond stating that as 35 days have passed you deem the appeal accepted. If no notice to keeper is received within 56 days then they cannot hold the keeper liable anyway. If you do receive a ntk check that the applied to the dvla for your details. failure to do so renders keeper liability invalid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spurga
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 17:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,751



Hello everyone. Quick update.

I received the rejection email from the parking company giving me the POPLA number.
I have not received the Notice to Keeper from them yet, the 56 days deadline is 15th March.

Their opening emails said "Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As previously stated in the reply. We kindly asked for you to supply us with drivers details or state whether you are appealing on their behalf, we have not had any response from yourself or the driver. We therefore accept the appeal from yourself as previously mentioned. "

Do I wait until 15th March (or the receipt of NTK) before I appeal to POPLA?
What happens if I do not receive NTK before the 56 days deadline?

Thank you for your advice once again.

This post has been edited by spurga: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 17:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 18:11
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,198
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If no NtK is received withi; the prescribed timescales, then the keeper isn’t liable
Just draft popla appeal, submit assuming your deadline isn’t missed after the point at which the NtK can be received.
Show us your appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spurga
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 22:28
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,751



Hello all,

Please see below my POPLA appeal template.
I used the advise from various forum posts.

Please feel free to comment / offer further advice and amendments.
If anyone is in similar situation, please feel free to copy and use as you deem necessary.

I added some more personalized comments to point (4) in bold, could you please have quick look at these and kindly advise if they are ok/appropriate?

Thank you

QUOTE

Parking Ticketing Limited
PCN Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Registration: xxxxxxxxxxxxx POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

POPLA Appeal Letter

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX.
I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Parking Ticketing Limited on xxxxxxxxx 2018 in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge and would be grateful if you would respectfully consider my appeal:-

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

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


1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.


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 wording in 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)!!!8212; (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further !!!8216;If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.!!!8217;

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper!!!8217;s address within the !!!8216;relevant period!!!8217; which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given.
As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability.
I was not the driver of the car and as a registered keeper I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.


2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid 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 because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

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

Understanding keeper liability
!!!8220;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

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

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

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

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

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written 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



4. 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

The area in xxxxxxxxxxxxxx is poorly lit and visibility is bad in the dark. Please find attached 4 photos to clearly show the visibility, marking and signage problem. The operator has not provided any evidence that the registered vehicle xxxxxxxxxxxxxx has been parked in a disabled bay. A disabled bay is typically, marked by a cross hatched area, either side of the bay and the universal wheelchair symbol on the ground.
If there are any legitimate disabled bays at xxxxxxxxxxxxx, there are no visible blue signs on posts stating they are disabled bays, no disabled signage and lines around bays are not marked. The poor visibility around the area is also clearly demonstrated by the wrong details of the vehicle's model or colour entered on the PCN, therefore this sets further doubts on the accuracy of the Parking Ticketing Limited evidence.
I also would like to point out that based on BPA CoP no grace period of at least 10 minutes was applied to the start of parking to allow the driver actions such as locating, reading and deciding to accept the contents of any signs.

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:

"LINK"

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

"LINK"

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

"LINK"

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

"LINK"

''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:

"LINK"

''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:

"LINK"

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

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that POPLA confirms its agreement with me that Parking Ticketing Limited has no valid claim against me and that its PCN should be cancelled.

Yours Sincerely,

XXXXXX XXXX.


UNQUOTE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 22:34
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,641
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



As I said to you on MSE as Coupon-mad:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...32#post74037032

QUOTE
A perfect example; I can't fault it!

Make sure you embed your pictures as images near your (bold) words, like an illustrated story book. Don't expect the Assessor to look at separate uploads of photos, just one nice long winning PDF story appeal, uploaded under OTHER on the POPLA website with a line saying

'The attached PDF is my full appeal and as there has been no Notice to Keeper and I was not the driver, I will save the POPLA Assessor time and point out, the operator cannot win this case'.


This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 22:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spurga
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 22:47
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,751



Which is the correct POPLA appeal point for this case please?

https://ibb.co/cV3Sec

https://ibb.co/kheHec



This post has been edited by spurga: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 22:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Sunday, 19th August 2018 - 04:22
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.