Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello! Hope all are doing well!

Well here we are, nearly a year since the last update and after ignoring several debt collection service letters, I'm now the lucky recipient of a Letter before action from CE.

Letter attached (note that it's dated 04 September but received just a few days ago, probably around the 18th.

They've also included Annex 1 from here https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/debt-pap.pdf and a Press Summary of two cases: Cavendish Square Holding v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye ltd v Beavis as well as some paperwork to fill in if one is unable to pay.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/debt-pap.pdf

Letter: (not sure how to get it to embed?)

https://imgur.com/a/qC1ILkW

POPLA Appeal has come back - unsuccessful (explanation below for those interested) - what should be my next steps?

Many thanks!

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to obtain a permit during the notified period.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The signage on the site does not comply with Section 19.3 and 19.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The evidence provided by the operator has been tampered with. • The operator has not provided adequate evidence of their authority to issue parking charges at this location. In the comments the appellant has advised the following: • The confirmation of appointment is not a contract. • The images provided by the operator show different timestamps which indicates potential tampering. • The signage does not comply with Section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site for one hour and 11 minutes on the day in question. The data from the permit system shows that the vehicle had not been registered for a permit on the day of the incident. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing keeper liability. The appellant has advised that the signage on the site is not compliant. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice.The signage clearly advises that a permit is required to park and failing to obtain one is a breach of the terms. Further to the appellant’s statement that the operator’s evidence has been tampered with I am satisfied that the evidence the operator has provided is correct and has not been tampered with. The fact that there are different timestamps on some of the images does not invalidate the PCN in any way. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. I have reviewed the signs and I am satisfied that the charge amount is clear as it has been highlighted to draw motorist’s attention to the amount. The appellant has questioned landowner authority .I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 7 of the British Parking Association(BPA) Code of Practice which states in 7 .1 “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. 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”. The operator has provided a confirmation of appointment document and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. After considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to obtain a permit during the notified period and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal.

It's just a comment box - can't upload or attach anything so mentioning is the best I can do...

On the landowner front I spoke to the Archdiocese who confirmed that the Parish Priest should be able to do this so I have no idea why he was reluctant. A further email may be in order...

How's this for a response?

I am writing to provide comments on the response submitted by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) regarding my appeal against the parking charge issued on 4th June 2024. I maintain that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) should be cancelled for the reasons outlined below:

Confirmation of Appointment is Not a Contract:
The "Confirmation of Appointment" provided by CEL does not constitute a valid contract. It fails to demonstrate CEL's authority to issue and enforce parking charges at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon. CEL must provide a full, contemporaneous, and unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, including specifics such as the definition of the land, restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, and the duration of their authority. The provided document lacks these details and does not comply with BPA Code of Practice, Section 7.

Evidence Tampering and Inaccurate Photographic Evidence:
CEL's photographic evidence shows different timestamps, indicating potential tampering. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 21.5a) states that photographic evidence must not be altered except for GDPR compliance or to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity. The presence of two different timestamps suggests that the images were altered after they were taken, breaching the BPA Code of Practice and undermining the credibility of CEL's evidence.

Inadequate Signage:

Visibility and Legibility: The signage at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon is not sufficiently prominent or clear. My photographs show that the signs are hard to read, especially in low light conditions, and are not visible from a distance.
Clear and Prominent Charges: CEL's signage fails to meet the standard set by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The £100 charge is buried within a lot of text, reducing its visibility and the likelihood that a driver would notice and understand the charge upon entering the car park.
Conclusion:
Given the inadequate signage, the lack of a valid contractual agreement between CEL and the landowner, and the evidence tampering, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and cancels the parking charge issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Here is the response - they also included my correspondence with them which has already been posted here so I removed those pages.

The last page is the contract that was requested and it seems like Creative Parking has sub-contracted to Civil Enforcement or something like that? In any case the signatories details (which I've redacted) are the same person that I originally reached out to who said, "our parking system in the church car park is managed by Creative Parking, not by the parish.  Any appeal must go directly to them, as we do not have the ability to cancel any PCNs.

CE also included this summary of the Beavis case and this set of images and a plan for the site.


I now have 7 days to submit up to 10,000 characters of comments on their evidence...

Excellent, I will do this and then report back.

Thanks,

How's this?

______________________

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am writing to appeal against the parking charge issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon on 4th June 2024. I am contesting this charge on the following grounds:

Background:
On 4th June 2024, I attended a community meeting at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon. Several other attendees also received parking fines on this occasion, highlighting a widespread issue with the clarity and visibility of the parking signage at this location. The signage is inadequate in communicating the terms and conditions to drivers, resulting in multiple penalties for individuals who were unaware of the specific parking restrictions.

Inadequate Signage:
The signage at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon fails to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, specifically Section 19 which requires that signs must be clear and legible so that they are easy to see, read, and understand. The signage at the site is not sufficiently prominent, and the terms and conditions are not clearly visible upon entering the car park. As established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the signage must be clear and prominent to ensure that the driver is aware of the charges. The signs at Sacred Heart Church are not adequately visible, especially in low light conditions, and fail to convey the necessary information to drivers. Attached are photographs taken at various times of the day showing that the signs are difficult to read and not adequately visible from a distance.

Lack of Prominent Notice of Charges:
Referring to the principle laid out by Lord Denning in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3, known as the "red hand rule," the more unreasonable a clause, the greater the notice which must be given. The parking charge of £100 is substantial, and therefore, it requires clear and prominent notice. The signs at this location do not meet this standard, as they fail to effectively communicate the penalty charge. The terms should have been more prominently displayed, especially given the high charge.

Comparison with Beavis Case Signage:
The signage at Sacred Heart Church does not compare favourably with the signage in the Beavis case, which was deemed adequate by the Supreme Court. In the Beavis case, the charge was prominently displayed with clear terms, whereas in this instance, the signage is unclear and not sufficiently visible to the driver upon entering and parking. This failure to provide clear signage means that the parking charge cannot be considered enforceable.

No Evidence of Landowner Authority:
Civil Enforcement Ltd has not provided evidence that it has the authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7) stipulates that operators must have a written agreement with the landowner that establishes their authority. I request that CEL provides a full, contemporaneous, and unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, which authorises them to issue parking charges.

No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss:
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The charge of £100 is disproportionate to any potential loss incurred by the landowner or operator. The purpose of the charge should be to compensate for the actual loss caused by the parking contravention. Given that the car park was not full, the incident occurred at night, and parking at the Sacred Heart Church is not normally charged, the charge is punitive and unenforceable. There was no financial loss suffered by the landowner in this instance, making the charge unjustifiable.

Photographic Evidence:
I have included photographic evidence of the signage at the Sacred Heart Church from various angles and distances. These photos clearly show that the terms and conditions are not adequately conveyed to drivers, particularly in low light conditions or from typical viewing distances.

Lack of Contractual Agreement:
Due to the inadequate signage, there can be no contractual agreement between myself and Civil Enforcement Ltd. For a contract to be formed, the terms must be clearly communicated, and in this case, they were not. Therefore, I cannot be held liable for the charge.

Conclusion:
Given the above points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and cancels the parking charge issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. The signage at the Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon is insufficient to meet the standards required for forming a contractual agreement and for clearly communicating the parking charges.

Thank you for considering my appeal.

Yours sincerely,