Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Fairygoth666 on March 09, 2024, 10:06:06 pm
-
Hi all,
I've had a response from POPLA which I have to reply to over the weekend. I'll paste my appeal below. The response from Civil enforcement is 17 pages long - I need advice on how to reply.
I went with inadequate signage:
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver
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 from the driver’s view at the site entrance, and is not visible from any parking spaces - 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:
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:
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 in a very small font and high up in most 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. At sundown, when this alleged contravention occurred, the font is so small as to make it readable to the naked eye. There is no signage at all indicating that there is a charge for parking in this car park on entry to this car park.
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, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/2016, 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.''
This case becomes more relevant when it is considered that at the time of the alleged contravention (date), sunset was at (time), further obscuring any signage/notices relating to the parking terms and charges.
From the evidence I have seen the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters that are too small.
I put the operator to strict proof as to the size and font of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering of approximately half an inch for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself, and to prove the location and number of signs required to be read to fully read the full terms of parking.
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
''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.''
''... Letter Visibility Chart shows the maximum reading distance for your sign to make the best impact, as well as the overall readable distance. A good rule of thumb is every 1 inch of letter height provides 10 feet of readability with the best impact. For example, 3” tall letters make the best impact within 30’; however, they can still be seen and read from up to 100’ away''
“… The font type that you choose can also impact the visibility of your text. Very thin fonts and script fonts can potentially decrease visibility. When choosing fonts, you should select a bold style that is easy to read and with sufficient spacing between letters (kerning).
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.
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 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 driver was to be informed of the parking charge given the complete lack of entrance signage.
This concludes my appeal.
Should I upload the response from civil enforcement as a redacted file?
FGM666
-
I've just received this reminder for the contravention that happened on the 16th Feb - this is the one that I have sent to POPLA: https://imgur.com/a/fQ2Oyam
Is this just a case of the letter being sent out before they realised that I had gone to POPLA? I am able to track on the POPLA site so I know it's been received by them on 30th March, this letter is dated 2nd April.
Just wanted to check that its a case of the letter being sent out at the same time as POPLA requested info from Civil Enforcement and not some dirty trick of theirs!!
Thanks :)
FGM666
-
Great - thanks. That will be the reason that they have allowed my appeal after 28 days at 11pm!!
-
POPLA codes are valid for 33 days. They state 28 days but you can file an appeal up to date 33.
-
Hi all,
I've just checked the date and I need to get my appeal into POPLA today!!!! I may already be too late due to the time.
Please can someone urgently send me a link to a template letter and an idea of what defense I am going for??
Panicking!!!
Modified to include the following update:
POPLA appeal has been submitted on the basis of inadequate signage at the site based upon the lack of signage at the entrance, the font size on all signs, the height of the smaller signs plus small font, sunset occurred at 17:31 on the date of contravention. Beavis, POFA and BPA quoted and everything adjusted to apply to the circumstances of this particular case.
I have no idea whether what I have written will be adequate so watch this space - I will update this thread when I have news.
How long does it usually take for POPLA to make a decision and inform the appellant? I have the other ticket to appeal in 7 days and if I haven't had a response from POPLA by that time I will not know whether my appeal will work next time. I would like to have more time to tailor my response to include the fact that I bought a ticket and was unable to get a permit if possible - however if this PCN gets overturned by POPLA then I will not need to take the extra time to add this detail.
FGM666
-
Sorry for the delay in replying, it's been flat out at work but I know I need to get my letter into POPLA, so there are a few things I have to add at this point:
- I haven't managed to get back there in the dark as it's a bit of a trek and I've been exhausted with work
- I asked the lady on the desk at the gym what the rules were around parking - she said that indeed parking before 6pm requires a permit and there are limited numbers available, I could ask the football coach for one. I did this and was told that they did not issue permits and I had to pay via telephone or at the machine >:(
- The photo of the entrance is here: https://imgur.com/a/DpUSxnI Apologies, it's a little blurred as my daughter took it.
In addition, the other ticket has now been appealed and rejected for the following reason - Signs in the above car park clearly advise parking terms apply between the hours of 6pm-12am on Fridays, Saturday & Sundays 8am - midnight, permit holders only at all other times and we have no record of the above vehicle being authorised to park on the day. The driver had again paid for parking and sent proof so this is because they parked there before 6pm.
So I have 2 that I would like to write to POPLA about, assuming that would be the right thing to do? Is it worth it? Is there a template? I think I only have a few days to get the first one in. Note - when you appeal the ticket with Civil Enforcement it asks who the driver is, so the driver has had to disclose this to them already. They could not just admit to being the keeper as the question reads 'Were you the driver?'. This question had to be answered to proceed to the page to lodge the appeal. Has the driver shot themselves in the foot?
As an aside, the driver took my daughter to football on Fri, dropped her off and parked up elsewhere. She returned to the carpark to pick her up and pay for parking to be safe. The machine was not working. The phone line was down for maintenance. Total panic!! The driver went into the gym and asked what to do. Apparently there is an app (park and pay) however after queuing for the ticket, getting her daughter, queuing at the gym 30 mins was almost up and by the time they had registered the app, set up payment etc another ticket would be on it's way. Driver told staff they weren't leaving until it was sorted due to 4 fines already. After some tense words the lady on the desk told the driver to type in her registration number into the tablet at the desk - did that and was instantly given confirmation of a permit for that day. Lady on the desk said 'don't tell anyone I let you do that'. Driver was fuming!! Are they colluding with the parking company? Are they somehow gaining from this. It's taken 6 visits and the driver has been sent around the houses every time and is still unable to get a permit, bar that single day one after raising her voice a little. Furious!!
Advice on next steps re POPLA would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
FGM
-
My reading of the signage (ambiguous though it is, potentially in your favour), is that you are only entitled to park without a permit (e.g. by paying), after 6 pm.
If you park before then, you need a permit. What's not clear at this stage is how one obtains a permit, and it would be worth clarifying this with the gym owners.
Ahhhhh, I hadn't considered this.
I will find out if that is indeed the case and get back to you :)
-
My reading of the signage (ambiguous though it is, potentially in your favour), is that you are only entitled to park without a permit (e.g. by paying), after 6 pm.
If you park before then, you need a permit. What's not clear at this stage is how one obtains a permit, and it would be worth clarifying this with the gym owners.
There are potential arguments to be run about any 'Permit holder only' terms, but such arguments are only won in court, so worth you properly clarifying what the gym understands the set up to be.
-
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.
My daughters football training runs from 5:30 to 6:30pm so this is exactly the predicament here. However, as the driver arrived a few minutes before 5:30pm (in order to not be late) then the appeal has been rejected because they failed to pay for parking within 30 minutes of arrival. The machine does not switch on until 6pm and the phone line says 'nothing to pay' before 6pm, therefore making it impossible to pay within 30 minutes of arrival.
FGM666
-
Yes I approached the land owner after the first PCN - they said there was nothing they can do and to take it up with civil enforcement.
Have you spoken to the gym, not to complain about your PCNs but to clarify how things work? Perhaps you're not using the paybyphone system properly, I don't know. But what you're saying is that, to take an example, a gym user who, say, has a class from 5.30-6.30 on a Friday wouldn't be able to park in the car park because they couldn't pay until 30 minutes had expired and would have to interrupt the class to do so.
-
Thanks for the replies.
For some reason I'm not being given the option to modify my post - all dates should be in Feb 2024.
Yes I approached the land owner after the first PCN - they said there was nothing they can do and to take it up with civil enforcement.
There is no other signage in the carpark apart from the small signs on poles like these https://imgur.com/a/un4Ch5E and here: https://imgur.com/a/V7Uj3i8 which are identical and very difficult to read. There is no sign on entry to the car park.
I will take a drive up there and take a photo of the entrance and the sign in the dark. There is no lighting on any of the signage.
What are my next steps?
Is there a template that I can use to appeal to POPLA? My daughter did not attend football this week as the driver simply cannot afford to keep paying these ridiculous fines. :(
FGM666
-
I've zoomed in on the CEL sign from the OP's previous upload. Payment at certain times, permit holders only all other times.
Leaving aside the large sign erected by the gym, the mention of the requirement to hold a permit is incredibly small and certainly not prominent (and anyway, potentially forbidding).
(https://i.ibb.co/1fPq3Qc/Screenshot-20240310-131759-Chrome.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jvQMdft)
-
Would you correct your dates in post #1 pl.
The 'Important Notice' has been erected by 'Llandarcy Gym', there is no mention of Civil Enforcement Ltd'.
I suggest you go to the gym and find out what they know about the parking arrangements.
The CEL sign doesn't specify any times as far as we can see - why do you insist on posting signs which are practicably unreadable to us?? - so are there others.
Pl don't post photos only of signs which you think support your argument, we need to see everything which might bear upon this issue.
-
Did you, at any stage, try Plan A? Have you tried contacting the landowner to see if they can get the PCN cancelled? Is the Academy the company that contracted the unregulated private parking company to operate the car park? If so, do they realise that sending their customers an invoice for £100 each time may not be conducive to good future business?
It's a pity you didn't come here the first time you received the PCNs. The signs and the conditions you have described would have been good points to appeal to POPLA. Unfortunately, by paying these scammers, you have been marked as a "mug" for future milking. When appealing to POPLA, mitigation is not considered at all. Only points of civil law and the BPA Code of Practice.
Can you take pictures of the entrance signs to the car park? The GSV pictures are 3-4 years old. Can you take a picture of the signs you showed under the same lighting conditions, without flash, as they appear to a driver?
-
Interestingly the back of the notice says that if your appeal is unsuccessful they will give the unique reference number to appeal to POPLA. However if I check the status of my ticket here https://appeals.ce-service.co.uk/ there is an option to re-appeal.
Is this actually an option? If so, should I try that first?
Fairygoth666
-
Front of PCN: https://imgur.com/a/7eT6xSO
Back of PCN: https://imgur.com/a/q3DhfNR
Fairygoth666
-
Please upload copies of the front and back of the PCN to an external hosting site like www.imgur.com and post the links here. Redact your name, address, vehicle number and any reference but leave all dates showing.
-
Hi,
I am desperately seeking help to fight 2 parking tickets issued by Civil Enforcement. I have already appealed and lost 2 tickets from this location - I'll give you a brief background so that you fully understand the issue. Apologies in advance for the length of this, but I feel the full background is important.
02.09.24
My daughter started football training in the Academy of Sport in Llandarcy, Neath. On arrival for the first session it was dark but the driver noticed small signs with a phone number to pay for parking. The signs were incredibly hard to see as the phone number is very small and it was dark, however with some straining the number was recognised. The driver rang the number and registered the vehicle so that it would be quicker to pay next time. At the end of the call the driver typed in the car park number and attempted to pay - the auto response said 'there is nothing to pay'. The car remained in the car park for just over an hour - the session runs from 5:30pm to 6:30pm.
09.09.24
2nd football training session. Again, the driver attempted to pay for parking (just in case) but got the same message - 'there is nothing to pay'.
Week commencing 12.09.24 - parking ticket received for parking on 02.09.24. Appealed with proof of phone record showing that the driver tried to pay. Response: On this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful for the following reason:
Signs in the above car park clearly advise parking terms apply Friday 6pm - 12am, Saturday & Sunday
8am - midnight, permit holders at all other times and we have no record of the above vehicle being
authorised to park on the day.
The driver was unaware that payment was required from 6pm - remember the session runs from 5:30pm to 6:30pm.
PCN paid as driver had missed the signage, it was a fair cop.
Driver also realised there would be another PCN for 09.09.24 for the same reason.
The second PCN arrived week commencing 19.02.24 and was begrudgingly paid, taken as a fair cop.
16.09.24
3rd football session.
Driver parked just before 5:30pm and waited until 6pm - rang the number to pay but had a message saying the system was under maintenance and to find another way to pay. Driver spotted people queuing at a small paying point that had not been noticed before. Driver joined the queue and bought a ticket. Due to the queue it was issued at 6:04pm.
Week Commencing 26.02.24
PCN issued for event on 16.09.24.
PCN appealed with evidence of phone record showing attempt to phone and pay on 16.09.24, plus evidence of purchased parking ticket.
Response: On this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful for the following reason:
Signs in the above car park clearly advise payment for parking must be made within 30 minutes of
arrival and on this occasion you failed to do so.
I REQUIRE ADVICE ON THIS TICKET AND WISH TO APPEAL TO POPLA
23.09.24
4th football session.
Driver went to parking ticket point at 5:55pm in order to get a ticket but was unable to as the machine is switched off and automatically turns on at exactly 6pm. Driver waited for machine to turn on and bought a ticket.
PCN received for this event too which is going to be appealed. The appeal will no doubt be unsuccessful SO I REQUIRE ADICE ON THIS PCN AND AN APPEAL TO POPLA ALSO.
Important points:
- The car is parked from just before 5:30pm until just after 6:30pm
- There are small signs dotted about the carpark with a number to phone to pay - the phone number is very very small and hard to read - see here: https://imgur.com/a/un4Ch5E and here: https://imgur.com/a/V7Uj3i8 (number to ring is top right in the 'to pay' box).
- You cannot pay by phoning before 6pm as the message says 'there is nothing to pay'.
- You cannot pay at the parking point before 6pm as the machine is switched off.
- You cannot pay before 6pm in any way.
- The main signage (which was not seen until the 3rd visit) is contradictory - the large sign says 'Payment option is only available between 6pm and midnight on a Friday. The second, smaller sign right next to it says 'Payment must be made within 30 minutes of arriving on the premises' - see here: https://imgur.com/a/ogkehiO
- PCN for 16.02.24 here: https://imgur.com/a/7eT6xSO
- Proof of payment for 16.02.24 here: https://imgur.com/a/N13qU9H - this was included in the appeal.
- Proof of call trying to pay for parking on 16.02.24 here: https://imgur.com/a/4lxUdvY - this was included in the appeal.
What I need to know:
- Is this worth taking to POPLA? I believe it is.
- What should the driver write in the appeal?
- The PCN from 23.02.24 is due to be appealed - should the driver appeal and await an unsuccessful response and appeal to POPLA in the same way as the current ticket or should it be appealed in a different way that is more likely to be successful.
I hope that all of this is clear. Please ask any questions you need to. I have all the evidence and records for each ticket if you need more info.
Many, many thanks,
Fairygoth666