Tweet
HI
Im leaving this tad late and I do apologise .
I got Parking Ticket at Kings. We go there regularly , you can park on double yellow lines , and in permit places with a Blue Badge and on site , there is no time limit. Things are changing , the car park has been built on, new clearly marked disabled bays and drop off zones etc. All of which Im aware. However, managed to find a double yellow near to entrance, used to be disabled bay , not sure, no new marking etc, in a rush , we are both crook, and slow etc , after 2 hour drive, badge up ...off we trot. On Return Ticket , seems we are parked in no parking zone, didnt see signs , looked around , and behind the tree line , a poxy little sign....so appealed it. Difficult through the online as no signage is not an option . but clicked a box and wrote appeal signage is inadquate and not seen, no clear road markings, only yellow lines which can be parked on under normal circs.
They declined appeal.
Now with POPLA.
Got 7 days from 19 Jan to reply .
Again, not thinking I have identified myself as driver. Its a Motability car, im lease holder,
Ive attached an edit doc CPP have submitted to POPLA have.
Any further advise on making a comment back to POPLA on what CPP have submitted...??
Id be really grateful. If it weren't for the fact OH is so bloody ill, we wouldn't be there in the first place!!
""Case History
Rules and Conditions
This site only allows parking in permitted areas as clearly stated on the signage (attached). The following will result in a Parking Charge; exceeding maximum stay/wait, parking within loading bays, hatched areas, pedestrian walkways, grass verges and double lines. We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.
Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.
Additional Information
We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice.
As the image shows the vehicle did not have its headlights on when entering the car park. We contend that there was clearly enough daylight the for the motorist to be confident driving without the use of headlights, and therefore the signage would have been fully visible.
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."
“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.
We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the BPA code of practice.
The BPA Code of Practice Version 8 – January 2020 has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods. Version 8, 13.1 states that parking operators must provide motorists a ‘consideration period’ before entering into the parking contract to allow motorists to consider the terms of the parking contract and leave the car park should they not wish to be bound by the terms & conditions. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on the size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. Once this time is overstayed the motorist is deemed to have accepted the terms & conditions and therefore bound by the terms & conditions of parking. 13.2 clearly states that once a parking event takes place, i.e. the terms & conditions of parking are breached, the consideration period discussed in 13.1 no longer applies. The grace period discussed in 13.3 refers to the time that parking operators must add to the end of a parking event before a Parking Charge Notice is issued, and the Code of Practice outlines this as a minimum of 10 minutes. 13.4 also clarifies that unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for a specific users e.g. Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc. There is no grace period applicable in such areas discussed above.
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.
Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”
We submit that this Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.
As you are aware, we monitor Kings College hospital - Cutcombe Road by the use of ANPR cameras and any motorist wishing to make use of the site must adhere to the terms and conditions displayed on the signage in situ. A parking contract is formed when the motorist enters the site, considers the terms and conditions on the signage, and chooses to remain. A Parking Charge will thereafter be issued should the terms and conditions of this parking contract be breached and it is our position that a motorist is bound by such a contract provided the terms were sufficiently brought to their attention.
It is our position that the signage in place on site at this location is sufficient for this purpose and that sight of the signs on site, even if their presence was a purported planning breach, would result in the motorist concluding that parking was subject to certain conditions. Motorists would also be placed on notice that breaching the same would reasonably result in enforcement action and we contend that the terms of any such enforcement action are clear.
Please be advised that the terms and conditions apply to all blue badge holders.
Please note that insufficient evidence has been received to cancel the charge."""
Im leaving this tad late and I do apologise .
I got Parking Ticket at Kings. We go there regularly , you can park on double yellow lines , and in permit places with a Blue Badge and on site , there is no time limit. Things are changing , the car park has been built on, new clearly marked disabled bays and drop off zones etc. All of which Im aware. However, managed to find a double yellow near to entrance, used to be disabled bay , not sure, no new marking etc, in a rush , we are both crook, and slow etc , after 2 hour drive, badge up ...off we trot. On Return Ticket , seems we are parked in no parking zone, didnt see signs , looked around , and behind the tree line , a poxy little sign....so appealed it. Difficult through the online as no signage is not an option . but clicked a box and wrote appeal signage is inadquate and not seen, no clear road markings, only yellow lines which can be parked on under normal circs.
They declined appeal.
Now with POPLA.
Got 7 days from 19 Jan to reply .
Again, not thinking I have identified myself as driver. Its a Motability car, im lease holder,
Ive attached an edit doc CPP have submitted to POPLA have.
Any further advise on making a comment back to POPLA on what CPP have submitted...??
Id be really grateful. If it weren't for the fact OH is so bloody ill, we wouldn't be there in the first place!!
""Case History
| 22/11/2022 | Date of event |
| System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request | |
| 28/11/2022 | Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing. |
| 28/11/2022 | Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response |
| 16/12/2022 | Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Signage (CPP) (w/ FAQs POFA) |
This site only allows parking in permitted areas as clearly stated on the signage (attached). The following will result in a Parking Charge; exceeding maximum stay/wait, parking within loading bays, hatched areas, pedestrian walkways, grass verges and double lines. We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.
Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.
Additional Information
We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice.
As the image shows the vehicle did not have its headlights on when entering the car park. We contend that there was clearly enough daylight the for the motorist to be confident driving without the use of headlights, and therefore the signage would have been fully visible.
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."
“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.
We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the BPA code of practice.
The BPA Code of Practice Version 8 – January 2020 has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods. Version 8, 13.1 states that parking operators must provide motorists a ‘consideration period’ before entering into the parking contract to allow motorists to consider the terms of the parking contract and leave the car park should they not wish to be bound by the terms & conditions. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on the size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. Once this time is overstayed the motorist is deemed to have accepted the terms & conditions and therefore bound by the terms & conditions of parking. 13.2 clearly states that once a parking event takes place, i.e. the terms & conditions of parking are breached, the consideration period discussed in 13.1 no longer applies. The grace period discussed in 13.3 refers to the time that parking operators must add to the end of a parking event before a Parking Charge Notice is issued, and the Code of Practice outlines this as a minimum of 10 minutes. 13.4 also clarifies that unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for a specific users e.g. Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc. There is no grace period applicable in such areas discussed above.
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.
Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”
We submit that this Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.
As you are aware, we monitor Kings College hospital - Cutcombe Road by the use of ANPR cameras and any motorist wishing to make use of the site must adhere to the terms and conditions displayed on the signage in situ. A parking contract is formed when the motorist enters the site, considers the terms and conditions on the signage, and chooses to remain. A Parking Charge will thereafter be issued should the terms and conditions of this parking contract be breached and it is our position that a motorist is bound by such a contract provided the terms were sufficiently brought to their attention.
It is our position that the signage in place on site at this location is sufficient for this purpose and that sight of the signs on site, even if their presence was a purported planning breach, would result in the motorist concluding that parking was subject to certain conditions. Motorists would also be placed on notice that breaching the same would reasonably result in enforcement action and we contend that the terms of any such enforcement action are clear.
Please be advised that the terms and conditions apply to all blue badge holders.
Please note that insufficient evidence has been received to cancel the charge."""
