At that point I'd stopped thinking and arguing the toss.

It stinks to high heaven. I think I'll keep pushing the LLDC to issue enforcement action on the illegal signage, but I haven't got the enthusiasm to appeal and go through it all again. Honestly, you wouldn't mind if they even played by their own rules, but if the courts only see them as guidelines and that simply by scatter gunning tiny signs all over the place they have done their duty.

Ha! Maybe. Young judge too, I thought it was going to go my way when he himself picked up on the permit holders only sign next to the car, and he questioned the woman from Gladstones on whether they were going after driver or keeper, but at the end he just summed up that he thought they had done what they needed to do, didn’t criticise me or my statement, but that he found in their favour. Can I just clarify that when I say i’ll be bitter and move on, that’s not directed at any of you who have offered your time and knowledge over the past two years. Just with the legal system that allows these ppc’s to operate on the fringes of the law. I parked in a council run pay & display while I was there, and you really notice the difference in the size of the signage they put up around the site. No hiding t’s&c’s in 5mm text there.

Sadly that did not go my way. Judge seemingly happy for PPC to flout their own CoP Guidelines because they are just that, not bothered by illegal signage, happy that signage was sufficient around the site to constitute and enforce a contract over the whole area regardless of the permit only sign and that driver has responsibility for checking signage, happy that the NTK was POFA compliant, and that keeper liability was established. Shame, not about the money - £275 in the end, this was never about the money, just the principle of these shady operators. Can’t see any point in appealing to have to try to overturn so many points. I will just be bitter and move on.

Still waiting. Good job I got a pay and display ticket til 2pm to be on the safe side.

And right on cue their rep just came to suggest having a chat “to discuss my position if I would like that?” I replied, “not really, I think my position is pretty clear”

Morning all, here nice and early, hearing is set for 10. Apparently Gladstones have decided to attend after all. Interesting. Any last minute advice?

Thanks EB. it also confirms that they shouldn't have the right to obtain keeper details doesn't it. The planning officer has said they will be contacting Gemini about it and will keep me updated. I've asked that they throw the book at them with enforcement and prosecution on the basis that they are profiting unlawfully from illegal signage. Definitely going to go after them myself for unlawfully obtaining keeper details if I win this.

The London Legacy Development Corporation planning department have just confirmed to me that there is no advertisement consent for their signage. Frustrating as it's too late to include the confirmation in my witness statement, but good to know. Any suggestions on how best to use this information?

Well, I'm taking it to the post office to go special delivery now. One to the court, one to Gladstones. 7 pages of statement, and 25 of annotated supporting photos and references all referenced in to the statement.for the following: 01: The claim form 02: Forbidding Signage 03: Horizon Parking – forbidding signage 04: ES Parking – forbidding sianage 05: PCM v Bull – Forbidding signage 06: BPA CoP Signage Requirements 07: Advertisement consent & requirement to adhere to BPA CoP to obtain Keeper Details 08: PPC - Landowner contractual breach 09: Non-POFA compliant NTK Fingers crossed I don't get penalised for getting this stuff to the court inside 14 days of the hearing. Thank you all for your help and guidance to this point. We'll see what happens.

Thoughts on adding the following please: Authority to enforce charges: 1. The Claimant included in their witness statement the PPC’s contract with the land owner. The failure of the PPC’s signage to comply with the BPA CoP puts them in breach of their own contract with the land owner: · The contract states under The Company’s Obligations: · “The Company shall at all times in connection with the provision of the services… ..Comply with and adhere to all the terms of the British Parking Associations AOS Code; · Maintain any relevant statutory or other licenses necessary for the provision of the services” 2. It has been demonstrated above that the Claimant has failed to comply with the terms of the BPA CoP, and has not sought statutory approvals for signage falling outside that which could be considered to have deemed consent. Illustrating a wanton disregard for adherence to their own contractual and Code of Practise requirements in their desire to maximise revenue from Parking Charge Notices at the site, a desire confirmed in the contract: · "The Company shall reserve the right at all times during the Term to withdraw the provision of any or all of the Services… if the Company deems that the Locations is uneconomical for any reason, including… low levels of Parking Charge Notices being issued."

I've added that FTM Dave, my second point now states: The Claimant asserts that the Defendant being the Keeper, is also the Driver. The Defendant has only been identified by the DVLA as the Keeper of the vehicle, the Claimant has not produced any evidence to identify the Driver at the time of parking and the Keeper has not identified the Driver. The Defendant does not admit to being the Driver and the burden of proof to establish the identity of the Driver lies with the Claimant. and my final point: 1. The Keeper has not identified the Driver and the Claimant has not provided any evidence as to the identity of the Driver, therefore the Claimant has no legal right to pursue the Keeper under the POFA 2012 and fails to establish Keeper Liability as the NTK is non-compliant. I've also been back and taken some more photos of the signage with a tape measure to back up my claims about some of the signage being larger than allowed under deemed consent, which also throws up a few more points about the signage being non-compliant with the BPA CoP, so I have added the following: The Signage: 1. The Claimant asserts that “The signage location, size, content and font have been audited and approved by the British Parking Association (BPA)” 2. Contrary to this the signage wholly fails to meet the requirements laid down in the BPA Code of Practice starting with the entrance sign. • The BPA CoP states: “Entrance signs must meet minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and follow Department for Transport guidance. Industry-accepted sign designs and guidance on how to use the signs are in Appendix B.” • Apendix B states the minimum size of text required for ‘Group 1’ text, in this instance ‘Pay by Phone’ (the entrance sign fails to mention permit only bays), which as this sign is located in an area entered immediately by turning off a 30mph road, should be a minimum of 60mm. Even if at a barrier entry carpark this text should be 50mm tall. • The Group 1 text on the entrance sign at the entrance to Logan Close measures approximately 35mm. (see attached photographs) • The size of this sign is 60x40cm, sized to fall just under the area requirement for deemed consent but as a result does not follow BPA Code of Practice. If it was sized to comply with the CoP it would require Advertisement Consent, this is a clear attempt to avoid this. 3. Similarly the signage which states the parking tarrifs and conditions is non- compliant with the CoP: • The BPA CoP 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450 mm.” • There are 10 signs on Logan Close displaying the parking conditions which measure just 390 x 310 mm • The text on these signs which state the parking conditions measure less than 5mm tall, clearly not readable without leaving the vehicle • There are a further 4 parking conditions signs on the pavement sides of Logan Close measuring 700 x 550 mm, possibly added to mitigate the non-compliance of the 10 signs adjacent to parking bays, however, the text on these still measures less than 10mm. • These larger signs are 0.385 square metres in size, clearly outside of the maximum size of 0.3sqm that could be considered to have deemed consent I then go on to lay out how the signage is illegal and therefore no contract can be made. Further revised and hopefully final statement (minus photos) attached Witness Statement Redacted.pdf

Thanks EB, I'll add the following in the first section " The Claim" : The Claimant asserts that the Defendant being the Keeper, is also the Driver. The Defendant has only been identified by the DVLA as the Keeper of the vehicle, the Claimant has not produced any evidence to identify the Driver at the time of parking and the Keeper has not identified the driver. The Defendant does not admit to being the Driver and the burden of proof to establish the identity of the Driver lies with the Claimant. Other than that, all good?

Revised statement attached for review if Dx or Eb would be so kind. Witness Statement Redacted.pdf

Apologies, please delete my already censored profanity! Dx, would you review my proposed additional statements in posts 118- 120 and let me know if you think all of this is good to go? thanks in advance