Parking Charge Notice - Overstay in Ilford Retail Park
Hi,
I received a Fine from Parking Eye. It states that the fine is for overstaying the 2 hours of free parking.
Please find attached the notice.


https://ibb.co/k5GgwYM
https://ibb.co/Ht6VRQ0

Please advise if this can be appealed.

First, edit your post immediately! Don't reveal who was driving. "The driver" parked, the keeper will deal with the parking charge.

Looks like you've received a ParkingEye 'golden ticket', where they know they haven't complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act to hold the keeper liable.

Send the following (courtesy of ostell):

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc

(Send First class post with a free certificate of posting from a post office)

OR use the online appeal form, as it's free, but make sure there are no sneaky drop down boxes that state yiure the driver. You must must MUST then check junk email DAILY in case their rejection ends up there

There is no subsection 4 in Section 9 of this Act. Copied from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...ing-charges.pdf


9. Access to DVLA registered
keeper records
9.1 Where a landholder does not know the name and address of the driver,
they can ask the DVLA for details of the registered keeper in order to
write to him or her. DVLA decide whether to release data under
reasonable cause provisions (for more information on this see
www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/data.aspx).
9.2 Where DVLA provide details of the registered keeper to the landholder,
he or she may write to the registered keeper for payment or the driver’s
details so that the landholder can pursue the unpaid parking charge. If
the driver's details are provided by the registered keeper, then the
landholder must pursue the driver for the unpaid parking charge, and the
registered keeper cannot be liable for the charge.
9.3 The registered keeper has 28 days after receiving a notice from the
landholder in which to provide the driver’s details, pay the parking
charge, or appeal against the ticket. If the registered keeper fails to do
any of these things the landholder may begin proceedings to recover the
parking charge from the registered keeper (see Q1 FAQ)

Yes there is: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted
You're reading/copying the guidance, not the act.

Although this is all academic if you don't edit your first post to hide who was driving.

Indeed
Op
Do as instructed
And also, whoops. If you're claiming something isn't in an Act, read the actual act!

Also, it`s not a fine it`s an invoice.

By chance is this vehicle on hire or lease?

I just love those who come seeking advice and then tell those they asked for advice that they are wrong...

Thank you for clearing this. I was just being curious and wanted to be sure about this Act.
I read up online on here that some people used the Grace Period by BPA in the reasons of their response (10 mins on entry and 10 mins on exit).
I thought I'd have to use that route too in my case.

I have updated the initial post - does it sound good now?

Thanks once again!

There is no 10 minutes grace on entry. The BPA changed this to a minimum of 5 as this allowed the operators to increase their income.

Thanks a lot, I will do the online appeal. So, just to be clear, I am pivoting on the fact that the Driver has not been identified and that they sent the Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper over the allowed 14 days period as per Section 4 in the said Act, right?




Yes, I know, unlike Council PCNs, these are mere invoices...which sometimes leads to Court Action :/
Not hire or lease.

FTFY - there are no 'sections' in schedule 4.

Perfect, not a hire car. Get the appeal sent.

ParkingEye are fairly good at not pursuing no-hopers, so may cancel upon first appeal. If not, we can support you with a POPLA appeal. Let us know what they come back with.

Also note that the BPA entry and exit grace periods don't accumulate. You either get 5 minutes to enter, read the signs, reject the offer and leave, or 10 minutes to enter, find a parking space, park (and maybe buy a ticket) and drive out. You don't get 15 minutes.

If you think there is 10min grace, you're looking at OLD advice. Years old.
Don't.

Thanks a lot for the guidance everyone.

I am reading up on the regulations here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted

So, for future reference, the Law states that:

1. Parking Charge Notice must be handed to driver on the spot or by affixing to vehicle while it is there (Paragraph 7(4)).
2. Then, a Notice to Keeper must be handed/posted within 28 Days from which the Parking Charge Notice was handed to the Driver (Paragraph 8(4)).

OR

1. Parking Charge Notice must be handed/posted to the Keeper within 14 days from the day on which the parking period ended (Paragraph 9).



In my case, they handed/posted the Penalty Charge Notice to the Keeper 1 month after the event (03/11/2021), which thus makes this Parking Charge Notice invalid/unenforceable/inadmissible in court (if it did reach that stage)?

Am I right in understanding this?

No

You're expanding the scope of pofa in ways which are not supportable
Pofa allows them to hold the keeper liable if they meet requirements listed in pofa

If they don't meet these requirement,s they cannot hold the keeper liable

At all points, the DRIVER may still be liable.

In my case, by sending the Parking Charge Notice to the Keeper 1 month after the parking event, they failed to meet the requirements under Section 9 (4), thus they cannot keep the Keeper liable, correct?

Yes, correct.
The invoice is still an invoice, and so they can still try to claim someone is liable

ParkingEye don't, so you shouldn't need to worry, but some parking companies will pursue charges even where they haven't complied with POFA and the driver is unknown on the 'reasonable assumption' that the keeper was the driver at the time.

Perfect. I will send the appeal ASAP....or on the 27th day from Date of Issue




I understand using POFA Schedule 4 is damage limitation.
But what happens in the case they were to carry on pursuing charges? Court Case on the keeper or something else?

Apologies for my questions, I am looking for a kind of flowchart on how these things work to keep myself from asking too many questions, but I couldnt find one.

If sending by post that could be too late, as it would be presumed delivered 2 working days later. Just send asap.


Depends - with companies registered with the BPA (like ParkingEye are) then the next stage is an appeal to POPLA (Parking on private land appeals), then court if unsuccessful there. With IPC companies there's the 'Independent Appeals Service' (IAS) but they're a kangaroo court that generally aren't worth bothering with. Then the next stage is court. With a few months/years of debt collector letters in the meantime.

I'll do it online, whilst ensuring no tickbox/dropbox for Driver information are completed, as @nosferatu1001 advised.

Fingers crossed, they cancel the PCN upon my appeal based on POFA Sched 4. Can't afford the stress with court, debt collector letters etc..

No-one should suffer any stress from a debt collectors letter, in fact they are a source of humour once you realise they are toothless and all the threats are carefully worded so as to avoid actually stating a position.

Indeed...but sometimes just opening the letter and reading it and then having to deal with finding out how to correctly respond in order to stop any more communications or to stop them from chasing you is a huge source of stress and sleepless nights. :/

The correct way to respond to debt collector letters is not to respond. The only letters to respond to are ones from the parking company, or a solicitor acting on their behalf sending a "Letter Before Claim".

Nothing will stop debt collectors from 'chasing you' (other than paying them), but they can do nothing other than send you letters. Their business model is based around recipients of those letters thinking they have more power than they really do.

Thanks for the re-assuring advice.
I will send the appeal following the invaluable guidance I have received from you all here.
I'll post up the response when I receive it.

Thank you.

If you send the appeal I suggested in post #2 there's a good chance it won't even get to the debt collector stage. ParkingEye will either cancel outright because they know they're not on to a winner, or they'll provide you a POPLA code, where you'd have a good chance of success.

Appeal sent!

Be sure to check your junk emails daily - parking company emails have a funny habit of ending up in there.

Will do!
Thought I'd get an auto-response following on from submitting the appeal online, but I did not get anything. So the screenshot is currently my only proof of submitting my appeal.
I will wait and check my inbox/spam folder regularly in the meantime.

Got the auto-response now, about 1 hour later!

Last night, I received, what I thought was another ParkingEye Parking Charge NOTICE, which was infact a 'Parking Charge Notice Reminder' in regards to the initial Notice I received dated 03/11/2021, by post.
The date on the letter: 12/11/2021.

I chuckled.

Hi @DWMB2, ParkingEye responded to my appeal and rejected it with the below:

Dear Sir / Madam, Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 03 October 2021 at 16:39, at Ilford Retail Park, Essex car park.We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. The signage displayed on site confirms that there is a maximum stay time in operation. Our records confirm that on the date of the event, the maximum stay time allowed was exceeded. We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. If you wish to have your case independently assessed, please be advised, there is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.Please note, if the Parking Charge was issued in Scotland/Northern Ireland, only the driver can appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals). As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the full value of the charge will be outstanding. If you have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to the full amount and the remaining balance will be due. A payment can be made by telephoning 0330 555 4444, by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk/payments or alternatively by posting a cheque/postal order to Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Please ensure you write your reference number on the reverse of any cheque/postal order so the payment can be allocated.
Parkingeye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454If you have received this correspondence via email, please allow 24 hours for our systems to reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our automated payment line or website.
Yours faithfully,
Parkingeye Team

What next? Proceed with POPLA Appeal?

Yes, of course. That's what you were told to do

Thank you for the response.
I'll start writing up an appeal and share it here before submitting it to POPLA.
I understand I have 28 days from today to appeal, but ideally, I'd want to wrap this up before Christmas.

To help with your drafting, be sure to have a search around on here for recent POPLA appeals, particularly those who also received their notices to keeper after 14 days. There's also some guidance on the MSE Forum HERE

The three common points to include in any POPLA appeal are

• POFA compliance, in your case, failure to deliver within 14 days, plus any other failings (they haven't included any of their POFA wording, so there'll be a few - there's a link to POFA in my signature, and again, if you can find some recent ParkingEye examples there should be some good examples)
• Signage - ParkingEye's signage is normally better than most, but if there are any issues with it then include these
• Standing/Landowner Authority - challenge their authority to enforce parking on the site. In the MSE link I shared there's some template wording you can use for this.

Hope you had a good start to the Year 2022 and a Merry Xmas.

I have finally got round to writing my appeal to POPLA after a very stressful start to the year. Please review the text of my appeal and let me know your thoughts. Deadline to appeal to POPLA is 13 Dec 2021 + 28 Days = 10 JAN 2022. Thank you.


POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 03/11/2021 from ParkingEye claiming to be a Parking Charge Notice.
My appeal to the Operator, ParkingEye, was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 17 November 2021. The appeal was rejected via an email dated 13 December 2021.
As the registered keeper, I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was not served. Therefore, 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. The Operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.
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 not served. Therefore, no Keeper Liability can apply.
To support this claim further, the following areas of dispute are raised:
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons:
(a) The Operator failed to comply with sub-paragraph 9 (4) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) as the Notice to Keeper was issued outside the relevant period described in the Act.
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:

’’The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the Notice to Keeper was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”
The Notice to Keeper states that the Date of Event is 03/10/2021 and the Date Issued is 03/11/2021 (see attached document ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice.pdf). That is therefore 31 days after the alleged parking event.
ParkingEye have clearly failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act.

ParkingEye cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.


(b) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2)(f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant Notice to Keeper in accordance with sub-paragraph 9(2), which stipulates a mandatory wording:

“The notice must –
(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”

The Notice to Keeper does not include any such wordings or warnings (see page 2 of attached document ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice.pdf).
The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
ParkingEye have failed to highlight that information in regards to the Protection of Freedom Act in the Notice to Keeper, thus making it an invalid Notice to Keeper.



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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'Notice to Keeper' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

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

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

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

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

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

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

3. The Operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.

It is suggested that ParkingEye does not have proprietary interest in the land and is merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that ParkingEye 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


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.
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN/

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

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

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbC...%2Bsign_001.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/t...s/sec526pt2.htm

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

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-l...lity-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensio...75068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by ParkingEye is invalid.

1) It was delivered 33 days after the alleged parking event (presumed delivered two working days after date of issue)
3) There's some arguably better wording for this point here - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...;postcount=2343
4) You spend a lot of time in this section talking about the signs in the Beavis case (presumably boilerplate from MSE?)... Given that case involved the same parking company (ie Parkingeye), comparing their signs with each other might not be wise, unless the ones in your case were a lot worse... Can you show us?

Ives seen a few PE signs that aren't as good as the Supreme Court ones. You can use this fact against them

1. Thank you for the correction, I'll update that.
3. I have updated this section with wordings from the link you'e provided.
4. You're right, I've copied from the MSE forum. I'll need to back there and take some pictures of the signs. I'll then upload it on here for review.




I'll take some pictures of the signs at the car park and share it here. Thanks.

This is on entering the car park:


Close-up of the sign when entering:


This is at the payment machine.

You can definitely compare them to the SC signs, which were clearer.
The entrance sign is totally fine. Tells youparking is here, fee payable, and t and c inside.

How high up is the tariff sign, number 3 in your pictures?

Great, so my point 4 is still valid right? I'll just have to insert the pictures in the text and upload the whole thing as a PDF.

In terms of height, im not sure, but it is definitely higher than 2m. Anyone would have to come up close to the ticket machine and look up in order to read the sign.

It's valid, but you of course need to be specific in how the signs aren't as good as the ones in Beavis.

For example the amount isn't as prominent.

Be more sure. "More than 2m" isn't as helpful as "between 2.5 and 3m"

OK, i'm gonna add the below to section 4:

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the small font size of the text “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”, which is illegible unless read from up-close, which is also located at an impractical height of between 2.5m-3.0m and which does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

I'll go back this evening and get some pictures from a normal distance, from a parked location and from within the car, in order to back up the above statement.

Including the height!

Here's some more pictures:

The sign is definitely over 2.5m as I have had to go up-close to read it, and still cannot read the terms and conditions. I am 1.8m tall.





upload image on web

Morning nosferatu1001.

I've uploaded the PDF here: https://pdfhost.io/v/fyeHq9xDX_POPLA_Appeal

Can you please review it and let me know if its all good to go?

Thank you.

I've uploaded my POPLA Appeal in PDF format here: https://pdfhost.io/v/fyeHq9xDX_POPLA_Appeal

Can you please review it and let me know if its all good to go?
Deadline is 09/01/2022 23:59.

That's 31 days - but with an issue date of 03/11/21 it is presumed delivered 2 working days later on 5/11, which is 33 days.

You might be better changing the title of point 3 to "No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice" or similar. The mention of trespass isn't necessarily relevant as they are not bringing a claim for trespass.