DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 27683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: June 27, 2024, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should, if possible, get some photos of the car park. They
should be area pictures showing the layout and the signs. Whilst
you won’t use close up photos of signs in your POPLA appeal
except to perhaps show any inadequacies in them, it is useful to
see where you were parked and exactly what signs were prominent
or not.
You will need to point out in your POPLA appeal that CEL must
prove that they have a valid contract between them and the
landowner. A signed statement confirming that a valid contract
exists is not sufficient evidence.
When you have provided some suitable photos to show the layout
and general views of the car park and signs, I will be able to
provide you with some suitable paragraphs for use in your POPLA
appeal.
You have until Monday 29th July to submit your POPLA appeal. The
rejection letter says 28 days but we know that POPLA appeal
codes are valid for 33 days.
#Post#: 29304--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 9, 2024, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not having much joy with Plan A - landowner is known for
being unhelpful
Photos of car park attached - I think I was parked 2 spaces to
the right of the black SUV
If it helps, the signage changed at some point - looking at
street view
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bo9t6EZRyvhGLqL18
for the area, it's an
entirely different company
HTML https://imgur.com/Nycf0ka
HTML https://imgur.com/W3S2bt6
HTML https://imgur.com/BpF58eo
#Post#: 29313--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 9, 2024, 7:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, there are signs but they do not appear to adequately bring
to the attention of the driver what the charge is for breaching
any terms.
Do you have a close up of the terms sign so that it can be
compared to the Beavis sign to show the failures? The only close
up you’ve shown us is the entrance sign that refers to the other
signs with the terms.
#Post#: 29334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: DWMB2 Date: July 10, 2024, 3:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One thing that may not help is where the driver parked,
seemingly directly below one of the signs.
#Post#: 29344--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 10, 2024, 3:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst it is agreed that it appears that the driver parked
almost in front of a sign and it must have been still light at
the time, the argument can still centre on the fact that the
signs are a block of text in a tiny font and the charge is not
adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
We need to see a close up photo of the sign to determine for
sure if there is any weight to that argument.
#Post#: 29443--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 10, 2024, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks both for the responses
Signs are as in my first post - link again here for ready
reference.
HTML https://imgur.com/wqLkhDk
It's quite local to me, so happy to go and take any further
photos if needed...
#Post#: 29453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 10, 2024, 8:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is what needs to be argued… compare the Beavis sign and the
CE sign:
[img width=600 height=424]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/SRGenNY.jpeg[/img]
Do you notice the difference and how the charge is brought to
the attention of the driver?
#Post#: 29542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 11, 2024, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I see what you mean. Is there any regulation on this?
I did a google about Beavis and saw some of the history of that
particular case - what is the relevance of the sign you've
provided a photograph of?
Cheers
#Post#: 29565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 11, 2024, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Lord Dennings “Red hand rule”:
[img width=600 height=275]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/PCrTa89.jpeg[/img]
J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 is an English
contract law and English property law case on exclusion clauses
and bailment. It is best known for Denning LJ's "red hand rule"
comment, where he said, I quite agree that the more unreasonable
a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it.
#Post#: 29884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 15, 2024, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
How's this?
______________________
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am writing to appeal against the parking charge issued by
Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon on
4th June 2024. I am contesting this charge on the following
grounds:
Background:
On 4th June 2024, I attended a community meeting at Sacred Heart
Church Wimbledon. Several other attendees also received parking
fines on this occasion, highlighting a widespread issue with the
clarity and visibility of the parking signage at this location.
The signage is inadequate in communicating the terms and
conditions to drivers, resulting in multiple penalties for
individuals who were unaware of the specific parking
restrictions.
Inadequate Signage:
The signage at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon fails to comply
with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice,
specifically Section 19 which requires that signs must be clear
and legible so that they are easy to see, read, and understand.
The signage at the site is not sufficiently prominent, and the
terms and conditions are not clearly visible upon entering the
car park. As established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67, the signage must be clear and prominent to
ensure that the driver is aware of the charges. The signs at
Sacred Heart Church are not adequately visible, especially in
low light conditions, and fail to convey the necessary
information to drivers. Attached are photographs taken at
various times of the day showing that the signs are difficult to
read and not adequately visible from a distance.
Lack of Prominent Notice of Charges:
Referring to the principle laid out by Lord Denning in J
Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3, known as the "red
hand rule," the more unreasonable a clause, the greater the
notice which must be given. The parking charge of £100 is
substantial, and therefore, it requires clear and prominent
notice. The signs at this location do not meet this standard, as
they fail to effectively communicate the penalty charge. The
terms should have been more prominently displayed, especially
given the high charge.
Comparison with Beavis Case Signage:
The signage at Sacred Heart Church does not compare favourably
with the signage in the Beavis case, which was deemed adequate
by the Supreme Court. In the Beavis case, the charge was
prominently displayed with clear terms, whereas in this
instance, the signage is unclear and not sufficiently visible to
the driver upon entering and parking. This failure to provide
clear signage means that the parking charge cannot be considered
enforceable.
No Evidence of Landowner Authority:
Civil Enforcement Ltd has not provided evidence that it has the
authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner at
Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon. The BPA Code of Practice (Section
7) stipulates that operators must have a written agreement with
the landowner that establishes their authority. I request that
CEL provides a full, contemporaneous, and unredacted copy of
their contract with the landowner, which authorises them to
issue parking charges.
No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss:
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of
loss. The charge of £100 is disproportionate to any potential
loss incurred by the landowner or operator. The purpose of the
charge should be to compensate for the actual loss caused by the
parking contravention. Given that the car park was not full, the
incident occurred at night, and parking at the Sacred Heart
Church is not normally charged, the charge is punitive and
unenforceable. There was no financial loss suffered by the
landowner in this instance, making the charge unjustifiable.
Photographic Evidence:
I have included photographic evidence of the signage at the
Sacred Heart Church from various angles and distances. These
photos clearly show that the terms and conditions are not
adequately conveyed to drivers, particularly in low light
conditions or from typical viewing distances.
Lack of Contractual Agreement:
Due to the inadequate signage, there can be no contractual
agreement between myself and Civil Enforcement Ltd. For a
contract to be formed, the terms must be clearly communicated,
and in this case, they were not. Therefore, I cannot be held
liable for the charge.
Conclusion:
Given the above points, I respectfully request that POPLA
upholds my appeal and cancels the parking charge issued by Civil
Enforcement Ltd. The signage at the Sacred Heart Church
Wimbledon is insufficient to meet the standards required for
forming a contractual agreement and for clearly communicating
the parking charges.
Thank you for considering my appeal.
Yours sincerely,
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page