DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39203--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 2, 2024, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The other driver has received this - please note this was sent
to his leasing company
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LvxkV5B/PCNJD2.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/FDf1259/PCNJD1.png
#Post#: 39845--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 8, 2024, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all - Any update on this please? The PCN was sent on the 19th
of September and the 21 days to make an appeal would be this
Thursday 10th of October 2024
#Post#: 39848--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 8, 2024, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would draft something up on the basis of shoddy signage.
Regarding the second PCN issued to the lease company, the lease
company should nominate your friend as the hirer of the vehicle,
after which he should receive something in his own name, has
this happened?
#Post#: 39857--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: b789
Date: October 8, 2024, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, the "other driver" (not strictly true unless you want to
throw them under the bus), or do you mean the Hirer (lessee) of
the other vehicle? If the vehicle is leased (hired) what has
been received is a "golden ticket" because CPM will have failed
to fully comply with PoFA paragraph 14.
In your case, not so lucky. You have received a Notice to Keeper
(NtK) which is basically PoFA compliant which means that even if
the driver is not identified, liability can be transferred to
you, the Keeper.
If you want to appeal, for what it's worth, then throw something
together and see if you have any luck. When it is rejected, I
wouldn't bother with an IAS appeal. That doesn't mean you should
pay.
If you really want to appeal it, I would suggest it is done in
the ultimate dispute resolution service, the county court.
Assuming it ever went that far of course. That is very unlikely.
The most likely successful outcome is any claim eventually
issued is discontinued early next year.
Just to clarify, are seeking advice and passing it on to "the
other driver" to copy what you do? If their vehicle is leased,
it is a different situation from here on. If they want advice on
how to handle their "golden ticket", I suggest a separate thread
so as not to confuse the two.
#Post#: 39877--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 8, 2024, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Well, the "other driver" (not strictly true unless you want to
throw them under the bus), or do you mean the Hirer (lessee) of
the other vehicle? If the vehicle is leased (hired) what has
been received is a "golden ticket" because CPM will have failed
to fully comply with PoFA paragraph 14.
>
> In your case, not so lucky. You have received a Notice to
Keeper (NtK) which is basically PoFA compliant which means that
even if the driver is not identified, liability can be
transferred to you, the Keeper.
>
> If you want to appeal, for what it's worth, then throw
something together and see if you have any luck. When it is
rejected, I wouldn't bother with an IAS appeal. That doesn't
mean you should pay.
>
> If you really want to appeal it, I would suggest it is done in
the ultimate dispute resolution service, the county court.
Assuming it ever went that far of course. That is very unlikely.
>
> The most likely successful outcome is any claim eventually
issued is discontinued early next year.
>
> Just to clarify, are seeking advice and passing it on to "the
other driver" to copy what you do? If their vehicle is leased,
it is a different situation from here on. If they want advice on
how to handle their "golden ticket", I suggest a separate thread
so as not to confuse the two.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I would draft something up on the basis of shoddy signage.
>
> Regarding the second PCN issued to the lease company, the
lease company should nominate your friend as the hirer of the
vehicle, after which he should receive something in his own
name, has this happened?
>
--- End Quote ---
I have split the thread as per the suggestion.
[member=26]b789[/member] - Apologies for this noob question but
is a notice to keeper same as a Parking Charge Notice? I thought
they were different or maybe due to it being a private rather
than council one doesn`t make any difference?
Should I draft something up regarding the shoddy signage as
mentioned by [member=103]DWMB2[/member] and if yes, is there any
template for that? And why can`t the template letter which
notifies the parking company that I as the owner does not want
to nominate the driver work in this instance?
And what you`ve mentioned is let this sit until it goes to
county court? If ever it will right?
Thanks for all your help
#Post#: 39879--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 8, 2024, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: S.M link ---
>
> And why can`t the template letter which notifies the parking
company that I as the owner does not want to nominate the driver
work in this instance?
>
--- End Quote ---
Ownership is irrelevant here, what matters is who was driving,
and who the Registered Keeper of the vehicle is. Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted<br
/>provides a mechanism for parking companies to hold the
registered keeper of a vehicle liable for unpaid parking
charges, in situations where they do not know who was driving.
It requires them to abide by certain requirements to do so -
their notices must be sent within certain timeframes, and
contain certain wording, as set out in the act.
They often get this wrong, in which case, the sort of templates
you are referring to can be used to point out that the keeper
cannot be held liable. In this case however, CPM seem to have
complied with the requirements, which means that if they do not
know who was driving, they can seek to hold you liable as the
registered keeper.
--- Quote from: S.M link ---
>
> Should I draft something up regarding the shoddy signage as
mentioned by [member=103]DWMB2[/member] and if yes, is there any
template for that?
--- End Quote ---
If it was me and I was planning to fight the charge, I would be
appealing - I take the view that if you have a reason you
believe the money is not owed, it is sensible to point this out.
They won't accept the appeal (no money to be made from doing
that), but it sets out your position, and shows you intend to
fight the matter. There isn't a template, as the appeal is based
on the circumstances of this specific case. You can keep it
simple, and just point out that the size, content, and
positioning of the signage is insufficient to bring to the
attention of the driver the alleged terms and conditions on
offer.
#Post#: 39883--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 8, 2024, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=S.M link=topic=2922.msg39877#msg39877
date=1728414024]
> And why can`t the template letter which notifies the parking
company that I as the owner does not want to nominate the driver
work in this instance?
>
--- End Quote ---
Ownership is irrelevant here, what matters is who was driving,
and who the Registered Keeper of the vehicle is. Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted<br
/>provides a mechanism for parking companies to hold the
registered keeper of a vehicle liable for unpaid parking
charges, in situations where they do not know who was driving.
It requires them to abide by certain requirements to do so -
their notices must be sent within certain timeframes, and
contain certain wording, as set out in the act.
They often get this wrong, in which case, the sort of templates
you are referring to can be used to point out that the keeper
cannot be held liable. In this case however, CPM seem to have
complied with the requirements, which means that if they do not
know who was driving, they can seek to hold you liable as the
registered keeper.
--- Quote from: S.M link ---
>
> Should I draft something up regarding the shoddy signage as
mentioned by [member=103]DWMB2[/member] and if yes, is there any
template for that?
--- End Quote ---
If it was me and I was planning to fight the charge, I would be
appealing - I take the view that if you have a reason you
believe the money is not owed, it is sensible to point this out.
They won't accept the appeal (no money to be made from doing
that), but it sets out your position, and shows you intend to
fight the matter. There isn't a template, as the appeal is based
on the circumstances of this specific case. You can keep it
simple, and just point out that the size, content, and
positioning of the signage is insufficient to bring to the
attention of the driver the alleged terms and conditions on
offer.
[/quote]
Thanks for the explanation above, i guess that would apply to
the hirer on the other thread.
When appealing should I be appealing on the basis that I am the
driver? Or should I not say that I am the driver and that there
are insufficient signage.
Thanks
#Post#: 39891--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: b789
Date: October 8, 2024, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A PCN is the term for the “invoice” for the alleged breach of
contract by the driver. It is provided in one of two ways, as a
Notice to Driver (NtD) attached to the windscreen of the vehicle
at the location. It can also be provided as a Notice to Keeper
(NtK) by post.
As far as you are concerned, as the NtK is in your name and even
if you didn’t identify the driver, you can be held liable for
the PCN. So, whether you appeal as the driver or only as the
keeper, it is up to you. Whilst there is no legal obligation for
the Keeper to identify the driver, unless you really weren’t the
driver, the it makes no difference.
#Post#: 39897--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 8, 2024, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
b789 - I haven't deleted the rest of your post. As the OP has
created a separate thread
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-broadstairs-botany-bay-cpm-lease-vehicle/<br
/>for the hired car, I have moved the part of your post that
concerned that case into that thread.
#Post#: 39962--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 9, 2024, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> A PCN is the term for the “invoice” for the alleged breach of
contract by the driver. It is provided in one of two ways, as a
Notice to Driver (NtD) attached to the windscreen of the vehicle
at the location. It can also be provided as a Notice to Keeper
(NtK) by post.
>
> As far as you are concerned, as the NtK is in your name and
even if you didn’t identify the driver, you can be held liable
for the PCN. So, whether you appeal as the driver or only as the
keeper, it is up to you. Whilst there is no legal obligation for
the Keeper to identify the driver, unless you really weren’t the
driver, the it makes no difference.
>
--- End Quote ---
Would the below be ok to be used - I`ve copied the bottom bits
from a template that i`ve come across previously.
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir/ Madam
>
> I take notice of a PCN issued to my address and received on
23/09/2024. As the driver I would like to dispute this PCN on
the basis that the size, content, and positioning of the signage
is insufficient to bring to the attention of the driver the
alleged terms and conditions on offer.
>
> The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
spaces. Where the vehicle was parked and from your own photos,
there are no parking boundaries and no signage to notify members
of the public that this is a private parking. You have sent a
picture of a sign which was not in the immediate vicinity of the
vehicle and you have failed to show where are signs to say that
this land is private.
>
> I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012
it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a
motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires
that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA
2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
> ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice'
means notice given by: (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:
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers
who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
>
> Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I
believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my
own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the
location. Having considered the signage in place at this
particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the
BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the
signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100,
which is illegible in from the driver’s view at the site
entrance, and is not visible from any parking spaces - is NOT
sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to
the attention of the motorist. There was no contract nor
agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that
the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any
terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion
and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case,
2015.
> In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating
only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and
intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and
not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme
Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car
park and those facts only:
> In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest
font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms
were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large
lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park,
according to the Judges.
> This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of
the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the
Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the
specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and
'agreement on the charge' existed.
> Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and
hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, similar in
appearance to un-related parking signage, not immediately
obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible,
being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a
background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close
together in order to fit more information into a smaller space
can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one
which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the
car.
> It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking
charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code
of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking
charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at
all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and
there are no signs with the full terms displayed - i.e. with the
sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering, and the
full terms displayed on a single sign, - neither at the entrance
nor elsewhere, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past
and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
> This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision
5960956830 on 02/06/2016, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt
found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car
park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was
inadequate:
> ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists
the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions
before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the
operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking
space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal
but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
>
> From the evidence I have seen the terms appear to be displayed
inadequately, in letters that are approximately half an inch
high.
>
> I put the operator to strict proof as to the size and font of
the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the
most onerous term, the parking charge itself, and to prove the
location and number of signs required to be read to fully read
the full terms of parking.
>
> As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter
Height Visibility is discussed here:
>
HTML http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx
>
> “When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it,
as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be.
For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside
your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the
people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just
fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a
nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3'
or even larger.”
> “... Letter Visibility Chart shows the maximum reading
distance for your sign to make the best impact, as well as the
overall readable distance. A good rule of thumb is every 1 inch
of letter height provides 10 feet of readability with the best
impact. For example, 3” tall letters make the best impact within
30’; however, they can still be seen and read from up to 100’
away”
> “… The font type that you choose can also impact the
visibility of your text. Very thin fonts and script fonts can
potentially decrease visibility. When choosing fonts, you should
select a bold style that is easy to read and with sufficient
spacing between letters (kerning).”
> So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms
and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in
far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an
outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up
on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable
due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right
in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch
and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.
> Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of
all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park
and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been
effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' -
i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering,
as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A
reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the
'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of
Practice, taking all information into account, would require a
parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more
transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with
fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast.
Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement
for transparency':
> (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer
contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
> (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of
subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible
language and it is legible.
> The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this
appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact
'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'
about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was
NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is binding case law from
the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's
case:
>
HTML http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html
> This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where
terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly
marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented
to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because
there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in
that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered
into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that
the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area
was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were
obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen
and read from a driver's seat before parking.
> Taking all the above into account, I therefore respectfully
request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page