Printfriendly

Sunday 17 January 2016

ParkingEye deceive Supreme Court with false evidence. Judgment built on shifting sands

The Prankster can reveal that the evidence filed by ParkingEye in the Beavis case was incorrect and may have had an effect on the final judgment.

It is clear that signage plays a big part in the judgment and that the basis the contract is not unfair is due to the 'clear and plentiful' signage.

Here are a few of the references to signage from the judgment:

Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”

Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”

Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness allows the court to address considerations other than the size of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, 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

Here is a copy of the signage map filed by ParkingEye as evidence.


From this map it is clear that you can hardly move around the car park without bumping into one of the 20 huge blue or yellow signs.

Here is the judges finding of fact based on that information.

Para 90. At all material times since then, ParkingEye has displayed about 20 signs at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals throughout it. The signs are large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so.

But what if there were fewer signs? The judges may well have come to a different decision. One possible judgment would be that they still ruled a charge of £85 may be valid, just not in this car park. Another possibility might be that the case would have been thrown out due to false evidence.

At what level might the judges have changed their mind? If there was only one sign in the car park, then this would almost certainly result in the appeal being won. If there was one fewer sign than the evidence claimed, perhaps the judgment would have stayed the same. Somewhere in between will be the tipping point.

The Prankster can now reveal the actual signage in the car park. For clarity, signs are shown at twice actual size.


What? You can't see them? Ah, perhaps twice actual size isn't big enough. Here they are again.



Yes, that's correct - only 15 of the 20 signs ParkingEye claim are present in the evidence are actually there. Five of the twenty signs ParkingEye claim were present are not. Fully 25% of the signs claimed were missing. In addition one sign (number 5) was in the wrong place and there was one extra sign not mentioned, which means that around 1/3 of the signage evidence submitted to the Supreme Court was either plain wrong or misleading.

But would this have made a difference? Here is the map again, together with the area of influence of each sign. Parking spaces within 5 bays of a sign on the same row are shown in green. These are all close enough that the driver would almost certainly spot the sign. Parking spaces withing 10 bays are shown in orange. These are warning bays. A driver might well be likely to miss a sign. Parking spaces in red are danger areas. They are so far away from a sign that a driver would be very likely not to realise restrictions exist.

Although the Prankster has not done this, there is also a case for disabled bays to be given special treatment. A disabled driver isn't going to go mooching around the car park looking for signs; the driver is also likely to be in a wheelchair. Disabled bays could therefore be marked in red if there are no nearby signs low enough to read - disabled drivers are after all likely to need longer to shop than able bodied drivers. In actual fact for this car park, most of the disabled bays are classified as 'red' anyway, meaning there are no nearby signs.


So there you have it. 172 well signed spaces, 233 badly signed spaces, and 67 spaces which can only be classed as entrapment zones, including most of the disabled bays. Of the 472 spaces, 63% are badly signed and of those 14% are ParkingEye's cash cows.

What can be done?

The Supreme Court verdict is water under the bridge and Mr Beavis will not be getting his £85 back. However, there is real doubt that the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did had ParkingEye not provided incorrect information. The rationale may have remained the same, but the verdict may have gone the other way for this particular car park and this particular set of signage.

This of course is not an isolated car park, and most other ParkingEye car parks have similar signage problems, with large areas of poor signage, together with distinctive entrapment zones. Worryingly, many of the entrapment zones are either in disabled bays, or are at the shopfront, where a motorist would just drive up, enter the store and so never see the signage far behind them.

ANPR car parks are not like warden patrolled car parks - there is no reason of  risking parking a few minutes extra on the chance the warden will not visit. Every single overstay will result in a charge being issued. Therefore as no rational person would overstay, the only reasons this would happen is in the case of an accident, or if the motorist missed the signs and did not realise the time limit. Signage therefore plays a huge part. Unscrupulous operators have a huge incentive to provide poor signage, and the more canny of these will cleverly have good signage in some areas of the car park, while creating entrapment zones elsewhere.

The Government are currently consulting on the bad practices in the parking industry and so there are several ways this problem could be quickly and easily fixed - for instance by defining what the minimum acceptable standard of signage coverage is. Currently the codes of practice of the parking industry fall conveniently silent on any quantifiable standards, preferring instead to define the minimum size a sign must be.

Sign Barry Beavis's petition here to get this matter responded to by parliament

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

26 comments:

  1. What's the penalty for purjury?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is exactly what happened to me as well. When I parked in the car park, I didn't see any signs at all. When I went back to see where I had missed signs there were only 2 small signs at the back of the car park. and yet little by little parking eye put up more an dmore parking signs but didn't tell me as i kept asking them how many signs were up in the car park when I parked there and they refused to give that information.

      Delete
  2. There is no suggestion this was done deliberately. This is just ParkingEye's usual incompetence and lackadaisical attitude towards filing court evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... "This is just ParkingEye's usual incompetence" ... there is no evidence of that either ...

      Delete
  3. What if the signage was unlawful in the first place?
    You will find that signage consent under the 2007 Advertisement Reugulations was not in place at the Riverside Car Park.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a valid argument which I assume was never explored in the beavis case. Unfortunately, it's too late for Barry Beavis to re-visit it.

      Delete
    2. For a number of reasons I have given my opinion on why an ex turpi defence in such circumstances would likely fail on previous blog posts.

      Delete
  4. I have solved the problem for me personally by only shopping on-line, don't think I ever need to visit my town centre again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You obviously have far more money and/or time to sit around moaning about these things than I do.
    I never fall foul of these rules when I park on council enforced high streets, I therefore adopt the same principles when parking elsewhere.
    Here's a novel idea: don't stay longer than advertised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It must be nice in your world. Would I need a visa to visit? Nearly all of the cases I have helped on, people have fully complied with advertised rules yet still been accused of wrongdoing anyway. Double dipping being a prime example. In one of my cases, a lady parked in her residents bay, displayed her permit, yet was invoiced by Park Direct Ltd who had no authority to operate there. They were contracted to operate in a nearby car park but decided to diversify a little and invade all car parks in the vicinity.

      Other fine blogs like Mr Mustard demonstrate that all is not well in the statutory, 'on street' world either. Let us hope that a parking weasel does not surprise you from behind whilst your head is buried in the sand.

      Delete
    2. If people stuck to the rules, which is the land owners prerogative, I can't see why people should complain if they get a ticket. Do these people object to council tax, rates, other bills etc? If mistakes are made by parking companies, surely they must be a tiny number and rectified on appeal ie. Cctv anpr technical issues.

      Delete
    3. If people stuck to the rules, which is the land owners prerogative, I can't see why people should complain if they get a ticket. Do these people object to council tax, rates, other bills etc? If mistakes are made by parking companies, surely they must be a tiny number and rectified on appeal ie. Cctv anpr technical issues.

      Delete
    4. I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe there is only a tiny number of wrongly issued tickets. ParkingEye admit they cancel 65% and POPLA then cancel another 45% if the motortist goes on to appeal to them. And how is the motorist supposed to know the rules if the signage is bad?

      Delete
    5. Hmmm, bad signage like Station Road, Barnehurst, DA7, by way of an example. There is only one single sign in the entire parking area but you wouldn't see it going in as it is facing inwards. Still, there is a shoe repairers by the station who changes watch batteries so people have themselves to blame I guess.

      Delete
    6. I think common sense dictates that there are parking conditions in any car Park. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluded. However, the fact that they cancel so many tickets need not necessarily be because they are incorrect, but mitigatimg circumstances. Surely a ticket is issued if a contravention has occurred.

      Delete
    7. Most of us abide by the rules and leave on time but we're human and errors occur and emergencies can crop up. Also, if the 'rules' of parking at a venue aren't displayed it can be difficult to abide by those rules.

      Delete
    8. Nice try Billy, but no cigar. There are many many car parks with no parking conditions, so it appears to be you who are deluded. Yes, ParkingEye can cancel for mitigating circumstances if they like, but POPLA cannot. Vast numbers of tickets are issued when no contravention occurs and the blog is full of examples.

      Delete
    9. From personal experience, whenever I've overstated in a carpark, if I'm unfortunate enough to receive a ticket, there's not a lot I can do. I've sometimes appealed, some I win and some I lose. I've probably had three or four over the last ten years, but I'm aware and surely other people must be aware that any car Park has rules. When I Park, I look for the sign. Popla will cancel in mitigation as well as an operator. I'm led to believe it is Human intervention when appeals take place weather operator, and certainly in the case of popla where both sides can prevent evidence. This business of I didn't see the sign doesn't make sense to me.

      Delete
    10. From personal experience, whenever I've overstated in a carpark, if I'm unfortunate enough to receive a ticket, there's not a lot I can do. I've sometimes appealed, some I win and some I lose. I've probably had three or four over the last ten years, but I'm aware and surely other people must be aware that any car Park has rules. When I Park, I look for the sign. Popla will cancel in mitigation as well as an operator. I'm led to believe it is Human intervention when appeals take place weather operator, and certainly in the case of popla where both sides can prevent evidence. This business of I didn't see the sign doesn't make sense to me.

      Delete
    11. Which parking company do you write rejection letters for?

      Delete
  6. So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is all you need is a watch?

    What is your advice for disabled motorists? Should they spend 20 minutes struggling around the car park each time hunting for signs?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems common practice for Parking eye to omit entrance signs as well if local practices are anything to go by, i know of 3 Aldi car parks within my local area managed by parking eye, not one has an entrance sign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a breach of the BPA code of practice and should be reported to aos@britishparking.co.uk

      Delete
  8. Such saintly ner do wrongs we have commenting. So on parking sites that don't have sufficient lighting so you can input your correct reg no, they too are just assisting the land owner? So now we need a watch, a lot of surplus energy to find a sign, read and understand it, oh and a torch? Oh and its your fault if you go to hospital and then die? you really should have anticipated this and paid up for a few days? You who think this is all fine should read more, learn about the real world and also check on how much these darling companies off set against their profits each year? All the ones they have six years to come back on, come in handy to save paying taxes?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This might also work in manually ticketed car parks used in my brother used in 70/80's never got one ticket some wardens crossed the road when he showed them the pin....
    http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com/voodoodoll.htm

    ReplyDelete