Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

[conroy]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

Thank you. We'll start with that!

[conroy]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

Hi [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

We've had a response which includes all of the letters sent to the keepers address but no tickets or photos. I'll ask for those again but is there anything you'd suggest I say about inadequate signage too?

Thanks again

[charitynjw]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

The leading authority on private parking cases is ParkingEye v Beavis.

In all of those cases, right up to & including Supreme Court, a significant factor was clear & easily legible signage. (Although this was less obvious in the SC judgment, by then the issues surrounding signage had been fully addressed in lower cout judgments. For instance https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...s-judgment.pdf at 2.4

2.4 The signs are worded as follows (the words I have underlined being especially large and prominent, and the words I have italicised being in small print but still legible if one wished to read them)
Parking Eye car park management 2 hour max stay . . .Failure to comply . . . will result in Parking Charge of £85.....(etc)

These site signs fall far short of that description.
It should be clear & obvious that the alleged contract is with Brittania. It is not....that gem is buried in the small print.

[conroy]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

Hi again @charitynjw

Thank you for your previous advice, we sent the following;

Thank you for providing evidence requested.
I give notice that I am disputing the issuing of the PCNs on the basis that the the signage at the site in question does not comply with the minimum requirements set out by the BPA (See section B-18 of the BPA code of practice) despite Britannia Parking claiming to be an approved operator. The signage also does not meet the standards required standards laid out in the "Parking eye vs Beavis" supreme court ruling you refer to in your initial letter (See 2.4 of the judgement)

For clarity, the signage;
- Does not cearly identify Britannia Parking as the operator of the scheme
- Does not appear throughout the site
- Are not conspicuous and clearly legible
- Does not display the terms and conditions on an area of signage of the required size

On this basis, I request that the PCNs are cancelled immediately. If you believe I am representing the signage of the site incorrectly, please send me photographs of the signs that are displayed and upon which you seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was been entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner. Please provide me with a diagram showing the locations and layout of those signs at the car park. Also provide evidence that the wording is in plain and intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s entry point - as well as evidencing that the signage meets the requirements of the BOA Code of Practice as well as the expectations laid out in the "ParkingEye vs Beavis" judgement you have referred me to in your initial letter.

I look forward to your response on all points raised.




And this is what we've had back;




Thank you for your correspondence.

Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Approved Operators Scheme, Code of Practice at all times. Our car parks are regularly audited and our signage at this car Park has been approved by the BPA. We meet all the requirements for our signage as advised under section 18 and 19 for England and Wales or Section 28 for Scotland, of the BPA’s Code of Practice, in regards to signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions.
Additionally we have a grace period of 10 minutes at this site, which allows a motorist 10 minutes after their entry to read and understand the terms and conditions of the signage, and leave without their details being recorded if they do not agree to these terms and conditions.
Therefore we consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw the driver’s attention to the terms and conditions of the parking contract that is on offer. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they have read the terms and conditions, by leaving the vehicle in the car park you have broken the terms and conditions and therefore we believe the Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued.





Is there any other advice you can give? The signage is clearly sub-standard and we really can't afford to pay the amounts they're asking for

Again, we really appreciate your help

[Kati]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

tagging [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] xx

- - - Updated - - -

(just to make sure he notices lol)

[ostell]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

Can you post up a picture of the FULL sign, not just that bit at the bottom.

[conroy]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

[MENTION=39331]ostell[/MENTION] of course, here you go. Thanks for having a look

[charitynjw]

Re: Letter Before Claim - SCS Law/Britannia Parking

Tbh, there's not much more that you can do at this stage.
The parking incidents are over a year old, so well outside of any appeal window.
However, a brand new debt pre-action protocol has just started (2/10/2017) & they would now need to supply an awful lot more than just a list of dates in order to comply.
& I still think that those site signs would not pass the 'Beavis' test.
In fact, I think that a reasonable person would, if anything, believe that they were dealing with Waitrose, not some parking co whose name is buried in the small print.
I doubt you can do much more than wait & see if they decide to issue a court claim, & if they do, whether it will be for the full listing in their letter (I've seen a similar case recently where the parking co was initially claiming a similar long list, but the court claim was eventually for only 3 or 4 of them).

& yep, carry on not IDing the driver!