Free Traffic Legal Advice

And why can`t the template letter which notifies the parking company that I as the owner does not want to nominate the driver work in this instance?

Ownership is irrelevant here, what matters is who was driving, and who the Registered Keeper of the vehicle is. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) provides a mechanism for parking companies to hold the registered keeper of a vehicle liable for unpaid parking charges, in situations where they do not know who was driving. It requires them to abide by certain requirements to do so - their notices must be sent within certain timeframes, and contain certain wording, as set out in the act.

They often get this wrong, in which case, the sort of templates you are referring to can be used to point out that the keeper cannot be held liable. In this case however, CPM seem to have complied with the requirements, which means that if they do not know who was driving, they can seek to hold you liable as the registered keeper.

Should I draft something up regarding the shoddy signage as mentioned by @DWMB2 and if yes, is there any template for that?

If it was me and I was planning to fight the charge, I would be appealing - I take the view that if you have a reason you believe the money is not owed, it is sensible to point this out. They won't accept the appeal (no money to be made from doing that), but it sets out your position, and shows you intend to fight the matter. There isn't a template, as the appeal is based on the circumstances of this specific case. You can keep it simple, and just point out that the size, content, and positioning of the signage is insufficient to bring to the attention of the driver the alleged terms and conditions on offer.

A PCN is the term for the “invoice” for the alleged breach of contract by the driver. It is provided in one of two ways, as a Notice to Driver (NtD) attached to the windscreen of the vehicle at the location. It can also be provided as a Notice to Keeper (NtK) by post.

As far as you are concerned, as the NtK is in your name and even if you didn’t identify the driver, you can be held liable for the PCN. So, whether you appeal as the driver or only as the keeper, it is up to you. Whilst there is no legal obligation for the Keeper to identify the driver, unless you really weren’t the driver, the it makes no difference.

A PCN is the term for the “invoice” for the alleged breach of contract by the driver. It is provided in one of two ways, as a Notice to Driver (NtD) attached to the windscreen of the vehicle at the location. It can also be provided as a Notice to Keeper (NtK) by post.

As far as you are concerned, as the NtK is in your name and even if you didn’t identify the driver, you can be held liable for the PCN. So, whether you appeal as the driver or only as the keeper, it is up to you. Whilst there is no legal obligation for the Keeper to identify the driver, unless you really weren’t the driver, the it makes no difference.

Would the below be ok to be used - I`ve copied the bottom bits from a template that i`ve come across previously.

Dear Sir/ Madam

I take notice of a PCN issued to my address and received on 23/09/2024. As the driver I would like to dispute this PCN on the basis that the size, content, and positioning of the signage is insufficient to bring to the attention of the driver the alleged terms and conditions on offer.

The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Where the vehicle was parked and from your own photos, there are no parking boundaries and no signage to notify members of the public that this is a private parking. You have sent a picture of a sign which was not in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and you have failed to show where are signs to say that this land is private. 

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 £100, 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, 2015.
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.
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 obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, similar in appearance to un-related parking signage, 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.
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 (and does not feature at all on some of the signs).  Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no signs with the full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering, and the full terms displayed on a single sign, - neither at the entrance nor elsewhere, 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 operator’s 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.''

From the evidence I have seen the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters that are approximately half an inch high.

I put the operator to strict proof as to the size and font of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering 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:
http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

“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:
 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html
 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.
Taking all the above into account, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed.

A suggestion:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) – [PCN Number], Received 23/09/2024

I write to dispute the above-referenced PCN on the grounds that the signage at the location was inadequate to properly inform the driver of the alleged terms and conditions. The signs were neither prominent, clear, nor legible from all parking spaces. There were no defined parking boundaries, nor sufficient signage to indicate that the area was private land, as evidenced by the photographs you provided.

1. Signage Inadequacy

The signage at the site fails to meet the necessary standards of visibility and clarity. The signs are sporadically placed and often obscured, with the wording crowded and difficult to read. The size of the lettering is insufficient to be legible from a driver's seat, especially considering the £100 charge, which is not prominently displayed. The signs are positioned high up on poles or walls, making the terms less readable due to the angle and distance.

2. Legal Grounds

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, 'adequate notice' of the parking charge must be given. This requires displaying notices that clearly specify the charge and are visible enough to bring the terms to the attention of drivers. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice similarly demands that signage be clear and legible, with the parking charge displayed prominently.

Furthermore, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that terms in consumer contracts are expressed in plain and intelligible language and are legible. The signs at this site do not meet these standards.

3. Comparison to the Beavis Case

The Supreme Court's decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) turned on the fact that the signage in that case was unusually clear, with the £85 charge in large, legible font against a contrasting background. The present case, by contrast, involves signs that are neither of similar size nor clarity, with the terms hidden in small print. Thus, the Beavis case is not applicable here.

4. Request for Evidence

I put the operator to strict proof regarding the following:

• The font size and style of the signage wording, particularly the most onerous term (the parking charge).

• The exact locations and number of signs required for a driver to fully comprehend the parking terms.

• Evidence demonstrating that the parking charge and terms were clearly displayed in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice.

5. Relevant Case Law

In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], it was established that if signage is not visible, a driver cannot be deemed to have entered into a contract. The lack of clear and adequate signage at this site mirrors the circumstances in Vine, further supporting my claim that no contractual agreement was established.

Conclusion

Considering the above points, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the PCN is cancelled. The signage was insufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver, and thus, the charge is unenforceable.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Have received the below reply from CPM. Should i appeal to the IAS using the same appeal points?

PCN REFERENCE NUMBER:

DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 18th August 2024

 

 

PAYMENT DUE DATE: 4th November 2024

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £100.00

Dear,

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.

At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.

The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.

Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was parked without a valid permit on display, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.

To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please use one of the following payment options;

Online: www.paymyticket.co.uk
Telephone: 0345 463 4040 (24hr)
Post: Payments & Collections, PO Box 3114, Lancing, BN15 5BR
Alternatively, if you do not agree with your internal appeal outcome and you wish to dispute the matter further, as you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.

The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. If you decide to appeal to the IAS, you will need to visit their website and use your PCN reference and corresponding vehicle registration. All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by the end of this working day.

If you appeal this charge further then you will lose the ability to pay at the reduced rate (if applicable). In the event that your IAS appeal is unsuccessful, the full amount for the PCN will then be payable. If you lodge an appeal with the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being determined, then the appeal will be withdrawn, and you will not be given a further opportunity to contest the charge.

If you do not wish to dispute the matter further and payment is not received within 28 days of the date of this correspondence then additional charges may be incurred, for which you may be liable. If the charge continues to remain outstanding, the matter may be later referred for litigation in the County Court which could result in a County Court Judgment being made against you; this may impact on your ability to obtain credit in the future.

"Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we have decided to ignore it entirely in this response" 

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN):
Vehicle Registration:
Issued On: 18/08/2024
Issued By: UK Car Park Management Ltd

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"While noting the Operator's prima facie case, the signage visible from the position of the vehicle appears to relate to an area separate to the location in which the Appellant's vehicle was observed.

On the evidence presented to this appeal I cannot be satisfied that the Operator has been able to show that the charge was properly issued in all the circumstances and accordingly I must allow this appeal."

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Is it my lucky day

Quote

"While noting the Operator's prima facie case, the signage visible from the position of the vehicle appears to relate to an area separate to the location in which the Appellant's vehicle was observed."

Interesting to note that they have totally ignored the fact that the Hirer cannot be liable anyway!

A rare win with the IAS.