DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29903--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 15, 2024, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show us the photographic evidence you intend to use in
your appeal.
#Post#: 29905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: DWMB2 Date: July 15, 2024, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Keeper link=topic=2323.msg29884#msg29884
date=1721032423]
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.
[/quote]
The Beavis case largely (but not entirely) killed off this point
- I'd leave it out here.
#Post#: 29909--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 15, 2024, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As already pointed out, pre-estimate of loss is a non-runner.
However, the points about the signage need to be expanded on, as
does the landholder authority.
I am also interested in this image you posted earlier on:
[img width=600 height=889]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wdrK0El.jpeg[/img]
Is this a file image from the operators website? If so, it is
evidence that they have tampered with the images because the
timestamp cannot be contemporaneous and must have been added
later. Look at the image and one of the photos already has a
timestamp on it but the two images have a second timestamp
superimposed.
#Post#: 29915--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 15, 2024, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
correctly.
POPLA Appeal Argument: Inadequate Signage and Lack of Landowner
Authority by Civil Enforcement Ltd at Sacred Heart Church,
Wimbledon
Appeal Summary:
The burden of proof rests with the operator, Civil Enforcement
Ltd (CEL), to provide clear evidence of the alleged
contravention and to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) was issued correctly. The signage at Sacred Heart Church
Wimbledon fails to meet the necessary standards of clarity,
prominence, and legibility as set out in the British Parking
Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) and the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Furthermore, CEL has not provided
adequate evidence of their authority to issue parking charges at
this location. Therefore, the PCN should be cancelled.
1. Inadequate Signage:
The appellant contests that the signage at Sacred Heart Church,
Wimbledon, is neither prominent, clear, nor legible from all
parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of
the parking charge.
2. BPA Code of Practice Compliance:
When evaluating the adequacy of the signage, it is essential to
consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of
Practice:
[indent]- Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You
must place signs containing the specific parking terms
throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to
read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… Signs
must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible
language, so that they are easy to see, read and
understand.”[/indent]
The signage installed by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) 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 key issues with
the signage are as follows:
[indent]a. Visibility and Legibility:
[indent]- The signage is not sufficiently prominent,
especially upon entering the car park. The excessive amount of
text and the way it is presented make it difficult for drivers
to quickly comprehend the terms and conditions.
- The signage fails to adequately attract attention,
particularly in low light conditions. Photographs taken at
various times of the day demonstrate that the signs are hard to
read and not clearly visible from a distance.[/indent]
[img width=500 height=376]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Vw8QEGy.jpg[/img]
b. Clear and Prominent Charges:
[indent]- As established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67, the signage must be clear and prominent to ensure that
drivers are aware of the charges. In the Beavis case, the charge
was prominently displayed and easily noticed by drivers. In
contrast, the CEL signage does not prominently display the £100
charge.
The £100 parking charge is not prominently displayed. The charge
is buried within a lot of text, reducing its visibility and the
likelihood that a driver would see and understand the charge
upon entering the car park.[/indent][/indent]
[img width=600 height=275]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/PCrTa89.jpg[/img]
3. Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) Compliance:
In addition to the BPA Code of Practice, PoFA 2012 also
discusses the clarity needed to make a motorist aware of the
parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is
given “adequate notice” of the charge.
- PoFA defines “adequate notice” as follows:
[indent]- “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate
notice” means notice given by:
[indent]- (a) the display of one or more notices in
accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in
regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including,
the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
- (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one
or more notices which:
[indent]- (i) specify the sum as the charge for
unauthorized parking; and
- (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of
drivers who park vehicles on the relevant
land.”[/indent][/indent][/indent]
Even if PoFA does not apply, this standard is reasonable for an
independent assessment of the signage at this location.
4. Assessment Against POFA and BPA Requirements:
Having evaluated the signage at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon
against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of
Practice and PoFA, it is evident that the signage fails to
provide adequate notice of the parking charge. It does not bring
the parking charge to the attention of the motorist, which is
necessary to form a valid contract.
5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority:
The operator, 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. CEL is put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority
flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the
operator.
It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the
landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of
operation, etc., and any instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorizes
this operator to issue parking charges or what the land
enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether
this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own
name rather than a bare license to act as an agent ‘on behalf
of’ the landowner.
As this operator does not have a proprietary interest in the
“relevant land,” 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 authorized to do and any circumstances where the
landowner in fact has a right to cancellation of a charge.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to
merely put up some signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, that
the agent is also authorized 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, 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 Code of Practice), 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 authorized can give rise to a charge and, of
course, how much the landowner authorizes this agent to charge
(which cannot be assumed to be the sum 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 Code of Practice defines the mandatory
requirements, and I put this operator to strict proof of full
compliance:
[indent]- 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:
[indent]- (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[/indent][/indent]
Conclusion:
Due to the inadequate signage at Sacred Heart Church, Wimbledon,
which fails to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and does not
provide clear and prominent notice of the parking charge, the
PCN cannot be considered enforceable. Additionally, Civil
Enforcement Ltd has not provided evidence of their authority to
issue parking charges at this location. The signage does not
meet the necessary standards to form a contract by conduct with
the driver. Therefore, the PCN issued at this location should be
canceled.
This expanded narrative now includes a comprehensive challenge
to the operator’s authority, emphasising the need for unredacted
evidence of their contractual rights and responsibilities as
mandated by the BPA Code of Practice.
#Post#: 30828--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 23, 2024, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies, I completely missed your question about the image.
That image was attached with the rejection of appeal later.
I've copied it again here, uncropped. As far as I can see, the
tampering if any is that there are two timestamps one hour
apart... only one can be correct.
They are also from May whereas the incident was in June - not
sure if this is relevant.
Thanks very much and apologies again for the delayed response -
I've not gotten around to sending off the POPLA appeal yet - I
will wait to hear if there are any further changes you'd
suggest...
HTML https://imgur.com/kUDMSSL
#Post#: 30830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: July 23, 2024, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Add another section to the POPLA appeal titled "Evidence
tampering by the operator".
Expand on it by saying that the operator has submitted as
supposed evidence a photograph of the sign that is alleged to
have formed the contract. The BPA CoP specifically Staes at
21.5a as follows:
[indent]Use of photographic evidence
Photographic evidence must not be used by you as the basis for
issuing a parking charge unless:
b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp applied at
the point the picture was taken;[/indent]
[img width=600 height=938]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/FWzaiQ1.png[/img]
It is obvious from the photograph above, provided by the
operator, that it has been tampered with and altered. There are
two different timestamps, one of which has, without a doubt,
been added after the point the picture was taken.
Additionally, in section 21.5a it states:
[indent]Alteration of photographic evidence
You must not digitally or by other means alter images used as
photographic evidence other than:
e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in
accordance with your GDPR obligations; or
f) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter
the letters and numbers displayed.[/indent]
It is obvious that this breach of the BPA CoP must invalidate
the PCN as it has been issued incorrectly.
Or, something along the lines of the above.
#Post#: 31017--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 24, 2024, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent, I will do this and then report back.
#Post#: 31701--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 31, 2024, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There has been a response, which I have uploaded here plus a
myriad of images. Would the fact that I have an email from the
chair of the residents' association saying that other attendees
were also caught out, be of any use?
I'm figuring out a way to upload the rather lengthy pdf - please
bear with.
#Post#: 31702--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: DWMB2 Date: July 31, 2024, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Keeper link=topic=2323.msg31701#msg31701
date=1722421634]
I'm figuring out a way to upload the rather lengthy pdf - please
bear with.
[/quote]
Dropbox/Google Drive work well - be careful to redact any of
your personal details that might be in the document.
#Post#: 31749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: July 31, 2024, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the response
HTML https://jmp.sh/s/Zo8R6pFwyzj3B7yjMBj5-
they also included my
correspondence with them which has already been posted here so I
removed those pages.
The last page is the contract that was requested and it seems
like Creative Parking has sub-contracted to Civil Enforcement or
something like that? In any case the signatories details (which
I've redacted) are the same person that I originally reached out
to who said, "our parking system in the church car park is
managed by Creative Parking, not by the parish. Any appeal must
go directly to them, as we do not have the ability to cancel any
PCNs.
CE also included this summary of the Beavis case
HTML https://jmp.sh/tvm3TeXH
and this set of images and a plan
HTML https://jmp.sh/s/QfEqjKneLqlyKCdL4phU
for the site.
I now have 7 days to submit up to 10,000 characters of comments
on their evidence...
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page