Author Topic: Civil Enforcement - Parking Ticket - Neath Port Talbot  (Read 386 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Fairygoth666

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Civil Enforcement - Parking Ticket - Neath Port Talbot
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2024, 12:06:00 am »
Great - thanks. That will be the reason that they have allowed my appeal after 28 days at 11pm!!

Fairygoth666

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Civil Enforcement - Parking Ticket - Neath Port Talbot
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2024, 10:27:28 pm »
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

Fairygoth666

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Civil Enforcement - Parking Ticket - Neath Port Talbot
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2024, 11:07:15 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