F1rst Parking PCN

[tc136]

Hi guys,

Could really use your help here. My car was parked in a hospital car park with a staff permit. I received a PCN stating that the car was parked in a "restricted area". Upon investigation, the car was parked in a visitor parking only area however there were conflicting signs. Less than 20m from where the car was parked, there is a sign which says "staff permit parking only beyond this point". The signage which states visitor parking only is placed very low and blocked by parked vehicles. There is also marking on the floor which states "visitor parking" but it was not noticed and could also suggest that both visitors and staff can park there.

My appeal was rejected and POPLA code has been provided. Do I have grounds for appeal?

Thanks a lot!

[Kati]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

tagging [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

[mystery1]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

What has the hospital said ?

I assume they now know who was driving ?

A typical decent popla appeal involves

1. Failure to provide a valid contract to operate on the land when put to proof. (wins a surprisingly high number).
2. Bad signage. No contract with the driver.
3. Keeper liability, appears not to help here as they know the driver.
4. Code of practice failures.

Hard to say without much info.

M1

[tc136]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

Thanks Kati and Mystery.

Although the staff parking permit in the car is registered to my name, I actually was not the driver on the day of the contravention. I also have not informed them who the driver was.

I have drafted my appeal based on previous appeals you have done for others but struggling to come up with somethings that applies to me for keeper liability. The only thing I can see is that the NTK did not state a period which the car was parked, only the time where the PCN was issued.

1. First Parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.


2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


3. Keeper liability, appears not to help here as they know the driver.


4. Code of practice failures.


1. Contract with landowner - no locus standi




F1rst Parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that F1rst Parking has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.


In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.


So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Parking eye and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...essKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1


I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.


It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."


The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."


In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.




2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £85 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £85.


As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.


3. Keeper liability.
Unsure what to type in here given my circumstance


4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.




The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.


There were conflicting signs within 20m of each other, stating “staff permit parking only”. This could easily cause confusion and therefore cannot be deemed intelligible.


The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:




“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”




For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not. Upon returning to the car park after receiving this unjustified 'charge notice' to check the alleged terms at a later date, I had to get out of my car to even read the larger font on the signs, and the smaller font was only readable when standing next to a sign. The signage were attached to a wall of a building at a very low height, which is obstructed by parked vehicles.






Furthermore Parking Eye state that:




"The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice"




When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:




"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"

Thanks again

[mystery1]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

Post up the PCN.

M1

[tc136]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

Hi Mystery, I have uploaded the PCN and the NTK. Thanks!

[mystery1]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

The dates are fine but the statutory wording is wrong. I'm about to embark on 3 days work. Give me a shout at the weekend if i haven't sorted you an appeal.

M1

[tc136]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

Thanks Mystery, appreciate it!

[mystery1]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

Edit to suit.

tc136popla.rtf

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...a-process.html

M1

[tc136]

Re: F1rst Parking PCN

Thanks so much Mystery! Fingers crossed