Private Parking Template Letter

Private Parking Ticket

A private parking ticket is a civil dispute between the land owner and the person parking their car on the private land.  The Private Parking Companies send demands for money, based on a "breach of contract". But no contract was signed, so what they are relying on is an "implied contract". The fact that you entered the land and there was "terms and conditions" displayed, that if you did not dispute, you agreed to. But if they want you to pay, they must prove their case against you. 

WONG WAY TEMPLATE

[YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

[THEIR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

Date: ??/??/202?

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Your reference number: ??????????

I am writing in response to your NOTICE TO KEEPER sent on ??/??/2022 where you requested the name of the person driving vehicle registration number ??????? on ??/??/202?.

The name of the person driving on that date was:

Name: [?NAME OF DRIVER?]

Address: [?COUNTRY ADDRESS AND POSTCODE OF DRIVER?]

As Section 5 of Schedule 12 of POFA 2012 states that you can only enforce the Parking Notice against the registered keeper of a vehicle if you do not know both the name and address of the driver. 

As I have now named the Driver, I have discharged any liability as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and do not expect to hear from you any further in relation to this matter.   

Yours faithfully,

{REGISTERED KEEPERS NAME]

You have 4 chances to cancel the ticket

1 - SPEAK TO THE LAND OWNER - They CAN have the ticket cancelled. The Parking Company has not legal standing to claim any money from you if the Occupier of the Land disagrees with the charges or says you were there legitimately.  Shops like LIDL will get Parking Eye to drop the charge if you speak to the manager of the store.

2. NAME THE DRIVER - Providing a name and serviceable address for the person who was the DRIVER (within 28 days of the Notice to Keeper) of the vehcile at the time and date of any 'contravention' discharges any liability (Under Section 5, Schedule 12 of POFA 2012)  that the REGISTERED KEEPER has even if they cannot contact the person you name!

2 - APPEAL - If the Parking company has breached it's industry rules you can appeal to POPLA or BPA. This is industry funded so will only dismiss the ticket if the rules have been breached. For instance you are allowed a 10 minute grace period. DO NOT tell them  who was driving the car.  They may use this information to sue you later for "breach of contract". If the private company is not a member of one of these trade,  organisations they will not be able to take you to court.

3 - DISPUTE - using the template letter below. If they want you to pay, they will have to sue you for "breach of contract" and there is NO CONTRACT. They will have to prove every element of the claim, like who was driving the car, that is the person they allege entered into an "IMPLIED CONTRACT".

APPEALING

The first stage of appealing is to dispute the ticket with the Parking Company. You can send the Parking Template Letter below to dispute their charge and this cannot be used against you at a later stage.  It does not tell them who was driving or give the ticket any legitimacy.

WARNING: If you APPEAL and it is rejected, this will be used against you, in court,  

if you don't win the appeal. The fact that you went through the process and it was turned down will be used by the parking company against you. So make sure you have grounds for appeal.

This only applies to firms in the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Independent Appeals Service. If the firm is not registered, it may be breaking the law.

You have 28 days after stage 2 to make an appeal to the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) and 21 days to take it to the Independent Appeals Service .

If the independent adjudicator agrees with you, the charge will be cancelled.

If your appeal is rejected, the company may take you to a small claims court.

ALWAYS check you have grounds for an appeal and NEVER name the DRIVER in the appeal. You can appeal as the registered keeper:

If the keeper, who the letter is addressed to, goes on Smarts online appeal portal they should add this wording for their appeal taking a screen shot once sent:

ANPR is no proof of Parking

An  Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)  camera system is NO PROOF a vehicle parked. The cameras just take a picture of a vehicle passing fixed points and they are prone to errors. There have been many instances of mistakes being made by camera operators where a vehicle has driven off and driven on a carpark and some passes of the vehicle have not been recorded,  resulting in Parking Charge Notices for contraventions that did not happen.  A vehicle could also have driving round, not parking for over the 10 minute "grace" period allowed by parking companies and still be send to bill: 

Grace Periods

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

[YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

[DATE IN FULL]

[THEIR NAME ADDRESS & POSTCODE] 

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal – Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent. 

Date:  [DATE IN FULL]

Ref:  [THEIR REFERENCE]

Reg: [REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE]

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in reply to your letter dated [DATE OF THEIR LETTER]. This matter is currently in fact (and in law) a “dispute; this is not an “appeal.” If you are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showing the restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between yourself and your client and the definition of your status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). 

As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegations. 

i. If alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged "loss" and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue). 

ii. If alleging trespass, enclose further evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder. 

iii. If alleging "contractual fee," I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter — not allow and profit from — unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law - (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). 

Please supply proof of your locus standi (Legal Standing) to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in your own right for this particular contravention. Under the Bill of Rights 1688/1689, it makes clear that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void, unless tried by a jury of 12 good men and women. 

As per the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, please verify the debt by sending a signed bill/invoice, along with the supporting two-party contract. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 clearly states it is unlawful to demand/request monies without an appropriate bill/invoice. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is only applicable if the driver details are not provided and confirmed with supporting evidence. 

BREACHES OF GDPR

It is believed that you are in breach of s.(1)(h)  of Article 15 GDPR, that no automated decision making or profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4) GDPR in relation to personal data in this case.

Article 22 states:  "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her."

It is contended that you automated computer system contains errors as all commercial software contains between 0.5-1 error per KLOC (1000 lines of code). You should be aware of the risk of reliance on such data due to the the media attention surrounding the Post Office Corrupt Data Scandal:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/15/post-office-scandal-workers-computer-system

and significantly the very technology upon which you seek to rely is in question due to Corrupt Data:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5296566/one-million-errors-a-day-by-dodgy-police-cctv-cameras-leaves-motorists-at-risk-of-wrongful-prosecution-and-hefty-fines-bombshell-report-reveals/

INFORMATION REQUESTED IN BREACH OF GDPR

It would also seem to me that you are asking for information from me that would apparently breach the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) 2018.  Before I can divulge any information, I would require proof that you are adhering to the GDPR 2018 and the Data Protection Act 2018.  Failure to provide proof that you are the Legal Occupier of the land in question would require me to withhold and data under these regulations and Act of Parliament.

The DPA 2018 says that I do not have to comply with the request if it would mean disclosing information about another individual who can be identified from that information, except:

If the other individual has consented to the disclosure; Or

it is reasonable to comply with the request without that individual’s consent.

In determining whether it is reasonable to disclose the information, you must take into account all of the relevant circumstances, including:

The type of information that you would disclose;

Any duty of confidentiality you owe to the other individual;

Any steps you have taken to seek consent from the other individual;

Whether the other individual is capable of giving consent; and

Any express refusal of consent by the other individual.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOU PROCESSING MY DATA 

You are hereby given notice under Article 17 & Article 21 GDPR 2018 to cease processing my data within the next 3 days.

Once you have given provided the above information and the PROOF that you have a legal right to the information, I am prepared to look into the issue of who was driving on the vehicle, you detail, on the particular time and date that you allege that matter occurred. I am willing to provide you with the result of my investigation for an administration fee of £20.00. For future reference, if any further contact originates from you, this will also be subject to my charges in the following fee schedule:

All/Any future communications to me = £150

If you do not dispute this fee schedule, it will mean that you accept it.

Kind Regards,

[YOUR NAME]

Example Response to Premier Response to Private Parking Template 

2nd Novemeber 2018

Dear "Appeals Team",

RE: "Parking Charge Notice" number:................

I would address the person who wrote the letter from yourselves dated 29th October 2018, but the signature is illegibile and the typed text does not identify who wrote this letter.

I note with interest your reference to The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. As stated in my previous letter, I am quite happy to provide the information you are requesting for an administration fee of £20. I note you have not provided any valid payment method. 

After further consideration and the fact that your letter does not relate to a person who I can hold responsible for their actions, I am concerned that you letter may be requesting information in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulations 2018. 

In addition to £20 payment for the information you request, I would like evidence of your ownership of the property or proof that your company is the lawful occupier of the land you are attempting to claim losses for.  

Please provide copy of the contract that you are relying on in this case. 

You are also put on notice that you are unlawfully storing data about myself in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018. 

You have 3 days to cease processing information about me under the rights afforded me by Chapter 3 Section 47 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Regards,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow up Letter is they respond saying "you still owe it"

If they write back without providing any of the information you have requested, 

you could follow it up with a "Cease and Desist" Letter:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#]

I refer to previous correspondence.

I do not feel that you are acting reasonably in this matter.

I have asked you to provide evidence to substantiate your claim against me and you have not done so. I feel that I have done all that I can to assist you. Unless you provide evidence to substantiate your claim against me I shall be unable to help you further in this matter.

This alleged debt therefore remains disputed by me. Save for supplying the evidence referred to above I must ask you to cease and desist correspondence with me.

Other than as described above, any further correspondence from you or any other party in relation to this matter may result in a complaint to the authorities under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

Yours faithfully 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they send you a LETTER OF CLAIM send them the response letter: 

DISPLAY A NOTICE FOR PARKING TO DISPUTE PENALTY NOTICES

What does this do?

An MP’s letter to a constituent has opened the door to the likelihood of every driver in the country being able to legally flout parking restrictions, the country’s top traffic lawyer has said.

Nick Freeman, aka Mr Loophole, said all that drivers had to do when parking in council-owned car parks - or on public roads where parking restrictions were in place - was to put a clearly-displayed sign in the car window to state that they were there illegally and were not entering into any contract!

Bromsgrove MP, Sajid Javid, had unwittingly given the entire country a ‘free parking’ ticket, Mr Freeman said.

Mr Freeman’s comments came on the back of a letter from Mr Javid, who was asked by a constituent what fines were being given to travellers on the town’s Stourbridge Road car park.

Mr Javid, who has just been promoted in last week’s Cabinet re-shuffle, said:

There appears to be some confusion regarding the basis upon which the travellers were on the car park in question.

The position in respect of any normal user of the car park is that, by entering and parking their vehicle, they are entering into a contract with the Council to pay a sum of money in return for the Council allowing them to leave their vehicle for a specified amount of time.

If the vehicle is left for longer than the paid for time, no payment is made, or there is a failure to comply with parking regulations, there is, in effect, a breach of contract which entitles the Council to make a penalty charge.

In the case of the travellers, they were on the car park as illegal occupiers and, as such, there was no contract with them as the purpose for which they entered was not permitted.

In the circumstances the appropriate course of action was not for ‘breach of contract’ but for ‘illegal occupation’.

Mr Freeman said: If that is the case, then motorists using public car parks, where charges are enforced, can legitimately put a note on their windscreen saying: ‘I'm here illegally, I am not entering a contract and I do not accept your T&C's’.

From a legal perspective the authority is handcuffed because of the absence of any agreement entering into a contract.

It is almost the analogous to car squatting!

Mr Freeman added: I must stress, the motorist must make it clear he or she is not entering into any contract, either expressed or implied, and is therefore not subject to any of the Ts and Cs, and the sign must be visible.

So put a notice close to your number plate to be able to dispute ANY parking ticket issued to you on private land.

The BEAT THE BAILIFFS 

"REMOVAL OF IMPLIED CONTRACT" STICKER IS AVAILABLE HERE

The Legal position on Private Parking Tickets Explained

Winning POPLA Parking Appeal

Follow up letter for ALL information under GDPR:

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal – Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent. 

Date: 

Ref: 

Reg: 

Dear Sir/Madam,

INFORMATION YOU SHOULD PROVIDE

Article 13 of GDPR 2018 requires you to provide me with the following information:

1. Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information: 

(a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and where applicable, of the controller's representative; 

(b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable; 

(c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing; 

(d) where the processing is based on point (f) of Article 6(1),  the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party; 

(e) the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, if any; 

(f) where applicable, the fact that the controller intends to transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article 46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article 49(1) , reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available. 

2. In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with the following further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing: 

(a) the period for which the personal data will be stored, or if that is not possible, the criteria used to determine that period; 

(b) the existence of the right to request from the controller access to and rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing concerning the data subject or to object to processing as well as the right to data portability; 

(c) where the processing is based on point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2) , the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any time, without affecting the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal; 

(d) the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority; 

(e) whether the provision of personal data is a statutory or contractual requirement or a requirement necessary to enter into a contract, as well as whether the data subject is obliged to provide the personal data and of the possible consequences of failure to provide such data; 

(f) the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1)  and (4) and, at least in those cases, meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject. 

3. Where the controller intends to further process the personal data for a purpose other than that for which the personal data were collected, the controller shall provide the data subject prior to that further processing with information on that other purpose and with any relevant further information as referred to in paragraph 2. 

You have already breached the above legislation by not providing this information when you first started processing my data. Further non-compliance with GDPR 2018 and DPA 2018 will result in a complaint being lodged with the Information Commissioners Office.

Kind Regards,

Example Appeal

Parking Eye - AFC Telford UTD - Main Parking

I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge on behalf of the driver from ParkingEye at AFC Telford UTD – Main

To protect the driver, they have not been named.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:

1. Did not park at AFC Telford UTD – Main

2. Insufficient grace period

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority

4. Inadequate signage

1. Did not Park at AFC Telford UTD – Main

The driver did not park at AFC Telford UTD – Main car park, the driver was went through the AFC Telford UTD – Main car park to the Whitehouse Hotel Telford car park which is absolutely free.

The Whitehouse Hotel Telford car park is adjoined via a metal barrier with the AFC Telford UTD Car Park and the driver was visiting the Whitehouse Hotel Telford and just went through the AFC Telford UTD – Main

At no point was the vehicle Reg no. DS67 RVK was parked at the premises of AFC Telford UTD Car Park

Should the Parking Eye wish to stop people using the adjoining route to the Whitehouse Hotel Telford they should block the way or put metal gates and keep them closed instead of penalising innocent citizens and praying on their hard earned money

Please provide evidence the vehicle in question being parked at the AFC Telford UTD Car Park premises on the day

2. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

Even IF the driver had parked at the premises, this matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere TEN minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The first 2 hours of the parking is already free so I do not understand why the driver is being penalised for a paid for parking session. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 10.59 and driving out at 15.09 on the same date. They were unable to park immediately upon entering the car park due to congestion from other vehicles, and there was further delay purchasing a parking ticket due to having to queue to use the pay and display ticket machine. Although no mention is made of any ticket purchase on the NTK, ParkingEye have since acknowledged that a ticket was purchased at 11.06 for 4 hours of parking, which expired at 15.06 (photo evidence provided). In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period by only 10 minutes, a sum of 7 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 3 minutes after the parking period had ended.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

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.

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, 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 full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, 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 2.6.16, 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.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

''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.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

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 (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) 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 entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully