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
