Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hopefully ,having deleted some notes,and highlighting the relative CoP  parts i have redrafted the appeal.
Will this be sufficient to go ahead with?

Whilst there are no pics attached to this post, the links are shown earlier and will either be embedded in the main appeal if possible or added sererately

Got until Thurs to get this off within the 28 day limit

How would the closure be  not having got this far..

could it be. 'Due to the shortness of the stop for safety reasons and the non compliance of the signage regulations in the CoP this can be cancelled'  or is there something better, that

a) doesnt appear grovelling to POPLA 
b) being demanding that it be cancelled


Dont want to fall at the last fence!

Thanks

APPEAL 
1   I would contest that the  halting of the car was  a brief stop for safety reasons  and was solely to ascertain why the seat belt warning had been activated,and as such  that no contract  could have been made in the time stated. I refers to Article 2,9 re consideration periods which states:
..a period of time in addition to a parking period where all terms and conditions have been complied with, when no parking charge can be issued is allowed to read and understand the applicable terms and conditions and decide whether to accept them and remain or reject them and leave.
However this period of time is not mentioned in the CoP
2   I also contend  that as the sign is an absolute prohibition on parking, no contract for parking could be entered into, as, in order to enter into a contract the sign needs to OFFER parking for £100. By stating you're not allowed to park can be classified as a forbidding contract .However even if a contract had been agreed, it would be considered  frustrated, due to the incident mentioned in point 1which occurred beyond the power of both parties.
3 Even if a contract was created (which is denied) it was frustrated as per point 1 the main argument is that is no contract was formed as the vehicle was not parked. But if it is determined that the contract was formed the terms were breached because of a vehicle fault. As this is outside of the control of both parties, therefore the contract was frustrated.
Following a further visit to the site , i consider that UKPC
SIGNAGE
Placement and Prominence of Signage

A further visit to the site to compile this appeal showed some anomalies which in my opinion, the parking company has not adhered to the BPA code of practice. I attach several pictures along with a aerial view of the location which may assist you
Now addressing the signage as laid down in the Code                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 4      Article 3.1.1. states
An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted/subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited
There are no UKPC signs on the entrance side of the road at the entrance. The first sign that is encountered is approximately 15yds inside the curtilage of the Hospital  (pic in appendix  or embedded) and does not comply with the sections a,c,d
       

  5    Article 3.1.2 sections a,c,d state
The entrance sign must display:
a) the fact that terms and conditions apply to accessing/parking on the site;
 c) the name of the parking operator;
d) the logo of the ATA to which the parking operator belongs

This sign does not show any of the mandated requirements

However there are three UKPC signs sited about on the other side of the road, approximately 15yds away from a driver entering the premises
I then found this in the CoP  in Appendix A
A.2.2 The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to
look away from the road ahead.
 Which, i submit, these do not meet that criteria,  as the driver will be concentrating  on completion of the turn-in and to attempt to read these signs would entail a movement of the head 90 degrees to look through the side window thus taking his vision of the direction of the vehicle, and the distance  is such that they are totally unreadable,
The pictures show the views, albeit from the pavement on a drivers view on entering the hospital grounds  pics 3 4 5 6 . As you will see from a forward view they are just in a drivers perhipheral vision


6    Article 4.4.  states
    ( previous relates to Blue Badge).......
The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and
conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the
vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision
on whether to park at the premises.
Article 3.1.6 clearly mentions
Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in
all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be
accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to
be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or
having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.
Note 1 also adds
 For example, in car park premises open to the public in the hours of darkness,
lighting of the premises and/or the signs might be necessary depending on the location of
the signs in order to meet the test of prominence in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair

As stated earlier, the only two UKPC signs that are visible are on the outgoing lane and are placed with the bottom edge 7ft above the ground
. It is impossible to read these signs from a drivers position close enough to read the ‘small print’
As you will see from the photos there is not a sign meeting these requirements and a further search of the area proved fruitless in locating one that meets the criteria
I would also point out that as the only ambient lighting available in the vicinity are the high streetlights on the opposite of the road a mimimum of 20 yards away, and the the prime purpose of them is to illuminate the carriageway underneath , and coupled with the notices on the opposite of the road being under foliage could well be considered not to be considered sufficiently lit in the hours of darkness and I consider they would certainly require a torch due to the height over of 7ft




Dont w

At last ...hopefully the appeal  ( pics will followed shortly)

 Anything that needs changing, tweaking, adding, or subtracting please feel free to go ahead


I would contest that the enforced  halting of the car was for safety reasons and was solely to ascertain why the seat belt warning had been activated, as prior to this the car check all conditions when leaving the drop off area further into the hospital grounds. The catch was checked and reaffixed and the lights extinguished. The driver then proceeded out of the premises, it is estimated that this took less than the minute claimed
 I would also argue that in Appendix F2.3 that stopping in ‘ no stopping’ zone there is no exemption for stopping to check ‘ an amber maintenance light.’ But  that stopping for a red warning light for safety concerns should be looked upon favourably .
I also contend  that as the sign is an absolute prohibition on parking, no contract for parking could be entered into, as, in order to enter into a contract the sign needs to OFFER parking for £100. it cannot 'say "no parking, but if you park here you pay £100 for parking". Any sign that states you're not allowed to park can be classified as a forbidding contract .However even if a contract had been agreed, which it had not., it would be considered  frustrated, due to the incident which occurred beyond the power of both parties.
Pics 1 and 2 showing correct and incorrect fitment+


Signage

A further visit to the site to compile this appeal showed some anomalies which in my opinion, the parking company has not adhered to the BPA code of practice. I attach several pictures along with a aerial view of the location which may assist yo
Now addressing the signage as laid down in the Code                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Under 3.1.1
On entering the NHS area there are no UKPC signs on that side of the road. #
See pics 3,4,5,6
There is however this sign several yards in which fails under 3.1.2 sections a,c,d,
Pic 7
The entrance sign must display:
a) the fact that terms and conditions apply to accessing/parking on the site;
b) whether payment is required, or whether free parking is only available for a
limited period;
c) the name of the parking operator;
d) the logo of the ATA to which the parking operator belongs;
It just has a NHS logo in top right hand corner  this is sign T2 ( pic)
It was then noticed that there are three of UKPC signs Sign T1 and two of sign T2 in close proximity on the other side of the road.
These are not instantly noticed as the entrance road is a sharp left hand bend well over 90 degrees and is not in direct view of a driver, except for a second or two on entering, in his peripheral vision.
I then found this in the CoP  in Appendix A
A.2.2 The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to
look away from the road ahead.
 Which, i submit, these do not meet that criteria.
This is not possible as the driver will be checking the completion of the turn and looking approx 180 degrees away from them, and the distance between him and the signs is such that they are totally unreadable
The pictures show the view, albeit from the pavement on a drivers view on entering the hospital grounds  pics 3 4 5 6
We then look at the two UKPC  signs on the outbound side The UKPC signs (T1) are a minimum of 7ft from the ground and the ‘invalid’ signs  (T2) 5ft.
Pics 7 and 12
Article 4.4.  states
    ( previous relates to Blue Badge)....... rights to stop on yellow lines, and in doing so must ensure there are separate,
prominent, readily visible (i.e. low-placed) signs (including repeater signs)
indicating clearly that within this land Blue Badge holders are not permitted to stop
or park on yellow lines.
The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and
conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the
vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision
on whether to park at the premises.



As you will see from the photos there is not a sign meeting these requirements and a further search of thre area proved fruitless
None of those in position can be seen by a driver who is looking through the passenger window.  And there is not a sign positioned lower for wheelchair users.. The catch 22 is if you stop to read the sign, which may take a minute or two, you will get an invoice for stopping.
I would also point out that as the only lighting available in the vicinity are the high street lights a mimimum of 20 yards away coupled with the notices on the opposite of the road being under foliage would not be considered ambient, and that the supplementary lighting be provided has not been considered. And should someone wish to read them in the hours of darkness they would certainly require a torch due to the height.

Can you be as picky on my earlier posting regarding the appeal?    lol

Here are pics i took this morning. you will note that there is only one notice on the way in but 4 ( 2 duplicates] on exit The bottom of the notices are 5ft and 7ft respectively and cannot be seen clearly from a vehicle.
It was considered earlier on here that they are wanting, if so is it worth adding these as  second item in the appeal  and what would be the best way of putting it?

At the moment i only have the seatbelt reason,and two letters to UKPC has been rejected

Unfortunately i cannot see any way of padding it out perhaps someone more experienced could suggest something  Here is what i am writing in the appeal


I am appealing this charge on the following grounds
The reason for the temporary stop was that the seatbelt warning sysmbol appeared on the dashboard...see photos showing normal and not connected pics of  information panel.  The car was halted and a check made of the connection and  subsequently the screen showed normal.
I am sure you will agree that the driver did not wish to proceed in a vehicle that was not compliant with the various road traffic acts,and having i sufficient prtection in the case of an accident on the public highway.
In addition as noted in the originsl invoice this action was no more that one nimute and would request that the appeals board consider cancelling the charge on the grounds of 'de minimus'

Then if the notices has some possibilty in either wording and positioning this would be item 2

I look forwrd to any suggestions, amendments, additions you amy wish to add.


https://ibb.co/v4J5gjNF
https://ibb.co/m5xBzxV7
https://ibb.co/B2qTKNqH
https://ibb.co/TBGFB1tK
https://ibb.co/qMGnqvzq
https://ibb.co/DPD8K03s
https://ibb.co/cctc3GBT
https://ibb.co/sdz2qvmc
https://ibb.co/6c2t4HTb
https://ibb.co/FqwX3J4K

copy of rejection letters from ukpc. the reverse is the sasme hence only one uploaded

https://ibb.co/8nR7pKcp
https://ibb.co/Q7hPh50T
https://ibb.co/GQGPkBcj

Whilst the stopping   is the main appeal point,on looking at the pictures of the signs posted earlier that one 'offers a contract' by reason of No parking on Roadway

However the second picture that says bo stopping does not mention a fee payable for stopping.

Also the signs are well above the eyeline of a driver passing and certainly out of site if parked adjacent to then if viewing through the passenger window.

Would it be worth revisiting the site to get more pictures and dimensions etc i cannot remember seeing signes on the entrance side of the road ,nor further down

Would this side appeal add any weight to the main one, especially if the first fails, we have this sineage issue to fall back on, as signage appeals are specifically mentioned on the popla website.

`As expected the appeal was thrown out, and i got a letter requea]sting more information. I could do no better that repaet my intial appeal.
Yesterday another refusal arrived and it advised that if i wish to appeal i need to get a reference number from popla.
On looking at a popla page it seems that i have to get this from UKPC

Who is correct?

Secondly  on the polpa site it mentions various appeals and one includes signs

As DWMB2 noted earlier would this be worth adding it to the popla appeal on  'no clear offer of contract' as a secondary appeal and would the fact than when the car stopped opposite the sign, it  cound not be read from the drivers position. Is it worth returning to the site and getting more pics and also the relative height of the sign?

Any assistance gratefully accepted

Thanks

Well
Despite all the advice i have recieved, i have decided to pay the buggers tomorrow ( last day for discount), as feel i would not bee able to put a winning 'defence' at popla with what i has een suggested/advised and end up paying 80.00.