The British Parking Association (or BPA) represents private parking companies in the UK. Under the current rules, only companies who are members can buy driver's details from the DVLA, which lets them chase motorists for extortionate charges.
To gain membership, companies have to agree to follow the BPA's Code of Practice, but we've previously seen how the BPA has failed to take action against companies that have breached the code, or even the law. But how would they react if a parking company failed to take action following a judge's ruling? Excel Parking Services Ltd have done just that.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
A BPA-approved operator since 1994, Excel operate a car park at the popular Peel retail centre in Stockport. It was here that motorist Martin Cutts parked in March 2010. Martin told us that he thought it would be free to park there, since he believed most big shopping centres didn't charge for their parking. He was quite surprised to get back to his car and find a £100 parking ticket on the windscreen.
The average drive may have just paid up, but Martin was no average driver. As managing director of the Plain Language Commission, his job is to campaign for clear wording and simple language, and he's a bit of an expert when it comes to signs. The BPA Code of Practice states that car park signs must be clear and visible - so that drivers have a chance to understand the terms and charges that apply.
Martin investigated, and found the sign at the entrance to the car park. While it does state that the car park is pay and display, the lettering is just 13mm high and sandwiched amongst many other lines of text. He felt that when driving past at 10mph, you couldn't be expected to read it. When he appealed Excel rejected it, and when he refused to pay again, they took him to court - and lost.
The judge visited the car park herself and agreed that there weren't clear signs to warn drivers that they needed to pay & display, dismissing Excel's claim and ordering the company to pay Martin's expenses
As a BPA-approved operator, Excel is supposed to be one of the most professional and reputable companies in the business, but nothing was done by either the BPA or Excel to make sure the same thing couldn't happen again and the signs have remained exactly the same.
So, what's going on? Well, Excel's Managing Director, Simon Renshaw-Smith described the court ruling as ".....an embarrassment to the judicial system" and he made some pretty rude remarks about the judge too, describing her as "not fit to serve the civil courts".
The BPA said that because the 13mm wording does not break the Code of Practice rules on clarity and visibility, rules which are drawn up by BPA Approved Operator board members... one of whom is Simon Renshaw-Smith, Managing Director of Excel Parking Services Ltd.
In the three years from 2008 to 2011 Excel issued a total of 11,498 parking tickets to drivers who had parked at the Peel Centre car park without paying and displaying. But, by comparison, this council car park in the centre of town, similar in size to the Peel centre, but with pay and display nine times larger, issued only 3000 tickets for not paying and displaying in the same time.
The lettering is nine times smaller, the number of tickets issued is nearly four time higher, yet the BPA are happy for Excel's signs to stay just as they are as the don't break the rules of the code. The BPA says its Code of Practice sets the standard for the private parking industry.
But with rules that allow signs like these, isn't it time to raise the standards, BPA?
A spokesperson from Excel said:
Q1) Why has Excel decided not to change the signs in the Peel Centre Car Park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?
A1) The said court case is one isolated incident that fell in Cutts' favour. We strongly believe that Deputy District Judge's decision was a grave error of judgement. In support of this view, we should point out that the Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking adherence. A compliance rate of this magnitude clearly supports our position. It should also be noted that we have secured many court judgements in Excel Parking's favour. The judgment creates no precedent.
Also, to further elaborate on examples from contractual law, would you not think it fair to state that to be in charge of a motor vehicle you must be of sound mind and have the benefit of reasonable eyesight? You are therefore expected to acknowledge and adhere to public information signs/notices. Ignorance is no excuse in English Law.
A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so, or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implication the motorist enters into a contract with the parking enforcement company (or the landowner) and accepts the terms set out in the notice by proceeding to park. The decision by the Court of Appeal has confirmed that provided that adequate notice of the consequences of illegal parking is given, the person parking accepts the terms as set in the notice and therefore consents to the risks and consequences.
For your reference below please review a 'summing up' example from case law in terms of signage.
The points to be drawn from this case however, are firstly, if prominent signs had been displayed warning the Plaintiff of the terms and conditions, then Mrs Vine would NOT have been successful in her claim. The sign(s) should be displayed in such a way that a motorist could and indeed should have seen the sign(s). Even if the motorist claims they did not see the sign(s) he/she will be bound by the terms stated therein.
The second point is that the charge to be paid must not be extortionate. In this particular case the Court of Appeal regarded the fee of £105 as reasonable.
For further clarity in terms of signage for the site, please find below for your reference the quantity and type.
Warning Signs & Equipment Present at the Peel Centre, Stockport
Entrance Sign: 4 No. 1500mm x 792mm
Repeater Sign: 29 No. 1220mm x 660mm
Tariff Board: 17 No. 1200mm x 1000mm
Pay Here Cones: 14 No. 605mm x 460mm
Disabled Pay at Machine Sign: 28 No. 300mm x 150mm
Pay & Display Machines: 14 No.
The Code of Practice states that signs must be at least 450mm x 450mm. With the former in mind would you not agree we not only adhere to, but exceed signage standards?
To offer you further insight into the layout of the Car Park, I would refer you to the attached photographs that clearly show signage throughout the site. To confirm, the majority of the signs are back to back (double sided) in order that they can be clearly seen from all areas/angles of the car park. Furthermore, Mr Cutts attended the Peel Centre with his 13 year old son, thus one would have expected them to take the safest and most direct route to their chosen retailer, JJB Sports. I have attached a photograph highlighting this route, which passes over three Zebra Crossings and takes you within a foot of a P&D Machine and accompanying back to back tariff sign.
To conclude this question, the Parking Industry, as with many other industry sectors, are often advised or offered guidance in terms of Best Practice via their respective governing or advisory Bodies. Such Forums are made up from members and stakeholders from outside of their specific sector i.e. consumer groups, motoring organisations and legal representatives, thus allowing for greater opportunities to share best practice and development for the sector in question. This is the case with the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme and the Code of Practice.
As such, when you then consider that the BPA, the Police's own association with the 'Park Mark', the Safer Parking Scheme Award, which the Peel Centre is proud to have achieved, as well as 99.6% of our customers at the Peel Centre acknowledging the signage in situ, clearly this confirms that the site is known as a Pay & Display car park. It is for these reasons the signage remains the same.
Q2) What assurances can Excel give to motorists that the company is committed to providing clear information to motorists, given the revenue generated from this one car park alone and the decision not to alter the signs?
A2) The Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking compliance. Such a high compliance rate delivers unquestionable assurance to our customers. There are 14 highly prominent Pay & Display machines, supported by 'Tariff Boards' and 'Pay Here' signs. In total the car park benefits from 92 'Customer Information' signs.
Excel Parking Services have been members of the BPA for over 17 years. We have also actively contributed to enhancing Best Practice within the industry throughout the whole of this time. We have also been instrumental in bringing about improvements to the private parking sector and will continue to call for further action and development of legislation resulting in definitive improvements for the industry as a whole.
Q3) How does Excel respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?
A3) As previously outlined above, we as a business are totally committed to the goals set out within the Code of Practice, and we will continue to work closely with the BPA to bring about an improved experience for consumers and operators alike as our industry evolves. The Code of Practice is extremely consumer focused, and with stringent independent annual audits, we are confident that consumers receive a high degree of protection. Accordingly, we will continue to encourage changes in legislation bringing about greater transparency for all parties.
We would also like to state for the record that we fully support, and welcome, the introduction of an Independent Appeals Service that will come in to effect via the impending changes brought about by the Protection of Freedoms Bill from October 2012.
A British Parking Association (BPA) spokesperson said:
1. Why has the BPA decided that Excel does not need to change the signs in the Peel Centre car park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?
The BPA has not required Excel's signs to be changed because they remain compliant with our Code of Practice. While the case involving Mr Cutts was noted by our compliance team, numerous similar court cases, not reported on by Watchdog, have found in favour of Excel, in which Judges have determined that signage is comprehensive and visible.
This inconsistency represents a problem for the BPA since we cannot change the regulation for the sector every time such a decision is made. We must therefore use all the information and context available to us to make the Code of Practice as pragmatic and as effective as possible.
2. Why does the BPA believe that these signs meet the AOS Code of Practice, despite motorists clearly not finding the information clear and visible?
We do not accept that motorists are 'not finding the information clear and visible'. During the period in question almost 2.9 million motorists followed the instructions on the signs at the Peel Centre in Stockport without difficulty - a compliance rate of 99.63%.
Nevertheless, the signs used by Excel have been fully checked by BPA's compliance team on a visit to the site, who have confirmed that they do not breach our Code of Practice.
3. What assurances can the BPA give to motorists that both the BPA and its member companies are committed to providing clear information to motorists, despite the decision not to change the car parks signs detailed above - and given the revenue generated from car parks such as this?
The BPA's Code of Practice exists solely to improve standards in the private parking industry, and therefore, to protect motorists. We review it regularly, in close consultation with bodies including; The AA, The RAC Foundation, The Citizens Advice Bureau, Consumer Focus, The Office of Fair Trading, Disabled Motoring UK, and a number of others.
The Code of Practice will be comprehensively reviewed this summer and we do intend to look closely at the clauses relating to signage.
We are currently working on the design and implementation of an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) for motorists ticketed on private land, which we have campaigned tirelessly for over the last decade and which the Government has finally sanctioned.
We have done everything in our power to ensure that the motorist is protected from rogue parking operators but unfortunately, the BPA simply does not have the authority to regulate the private parking industry any further than it already does.
4. How does the BPA respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?
The AOS was created in 2007 in the absence of any other effective regulation of the Private Parking Industry. As such, it is still developing and improving.
We now have a robust Sanctions Scheme where, if members are found to be in breach of the Code, sanctions points are awarded which can eventually result in expulsion. Currently, 29 members have sanction points on their record and five members have been expelled from the Scheme.
We have a dedicated Compliance Manager and have conducted over 2000 investigations into member behaviour last year following complaints from the public.
However, we believe that our Approved Operator Scheme is no substitute for legislation which regulates the sector. We have campaigned for many years for the Government to fully regulate private parking operators so that those who are currently not answerable to any authority can be held to account. A robust regulatory framework enshrined in law is the fairest and most effective way to achieve this but the Government have consistently refused to take this important step to protect motorists.
Excel Parking Services Ltd
To gain membership, companies have to agree to follow the BPA's Code of Practice, but we've previously seen how the BPA has failed to take action against companies that have breached the code, or even the law. But how would they react if a parking company failed to take action following a judge's ruling? Excel Parking Services Ltd have done just that.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
A BPA-approved operator since 1994, Excel operate a car park at the popular Peel retail centre in Stockport. It was here that motorist Martin Cutts parked in March 2010. Martin told us that he thought it would be free to park there, since he believed most big shopping centres didn't charge for their parking. He was quite surprised to get back to his car and find a £100 parking ticket on the windscreen.
The average drive may have just paid up, but Martin was no average driver. As managing director of the Plain Language Commission, his job is to campaign for clear wording and simple language, and he's a bit of an expert when it comes to signs. The BPA Code of Practice states that car park signs must be clear and visible - so that drivers have a chance to understand the terms and charges that apply.
Martin investigated, and found the sign at the entrance to the car park. While it does state that the car park is pay and display, the lettering is just 13mm high and sandwiched amongst many other lines of text. He felt that when driving past at 10mph, you couldn't be expected to read it. When he appealed Excel rejected it, and when he refused to pay again, they took him to court - and lost.
The judge visited the car park herself and agreed that there weren't clear signs to warn drivers that they needed to pay & display, dismissing Excel's claim and ordering the company to pay Martin's expenses
As a BPA-approved operator, Excel is supposed to be one of the most professional and reputable companies in the business, but nothing was done by either the BPA or Excel to make sure the same thing couldn't happen again and the signs have remained exactly the same.
So, what's going on? Well, Excel's Managing Director, Simon Renshaw-Smith described the court ruling as ".....an embarrassment to the judicial system" and he made some pretty rude remarks about the judge too, describing her as "not fit to serve the civil courts".
The BPA said that because the 13mm wording does not break the Code of Practice rules on clarity and visibility, rules which are drawn up by BPA Approved Operator board members... one of whom is Simon Renshaw-Smith, Managing Director of Excel Parking Services Ltd.
In the three years from 2008 to 2011 Excel issued a total of 11,498 parking tickets to drivers who had parked at the Peel Centre car park without paying and displaying. But, by comparison, this council car park in the centre of town, similar in size to the Peel centre, but with pay and display nine times larger, issued only 3000 tickets for not paying and displaying in the same time.
The lettering is nine times smaller, the number of tickets issued is nearly four time higher, yet the BPA are happy for Excel's signs to stay just as they are as the don't break the rules of the code. The BPA says its Code of Practice sets the standard for the private parking industry.
But with rules that allow signs like these, isn't it time to raise the standards, BPA?
COMPANY RESPONSES
A spokesperson from Excel said:
Q1) Why has Excel decided not to change the signs in the Peel Centre Car Park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?
A1) The said court case is one isolated incident that fell in Cutts' favour. We strongly believe that Deputy District Judge's decision was a grave error of judgement. In support of this view, we should point out that the Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking adherence. A compliance rate of this magnitude clearly supports our position. It should also be noted that we have secured many court judgements in Excel Parking's favour. The judgment creates no precedent.
Also, to further elaborate on examples from contractual law, would you not think it fair to state that to be in charge of a motor vehicle you must be of sound mind and have the benefit of reasonable eyesight? You are therefore expected to acknowledge and adhere to public information signs/notices. Ignorance is no excuse in English Law.
A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so, or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implication the motorist enters into a contract with the parking enforcement company (or the landowner) and accepts the terms set out in the notice by proceeding to park. The decision by the Court of Appeal has confirmed that provided that adequate notice of the consequences of illegal parking is given, the person parking accepts the terms as set in the notice and therefore consents to the risks and consequences.
For your reference below please review a 'summing up' example from case law in terms of signage.
- Vine v Waltham LBC [2000] EG 13 May 142 the Court of Appeal
The points to be drawn from this case however, are firstly, if prominent signs had been displayed warning the Plaintiff of the terms and conditions, then Mrs Vine would NOT have been successful in her claim. The sign(s) should be displayed in such a way that a motorist could and indeed should have seen the sign(s). Even if the motorist claims they did not see the sign(s) he/she will be bound by the terms stated therein.
The second point is that the charge to be paid must not be extortionate. In this particular case the Court of Appeal regarded the fee of £105 as reasonable.
For further clarity in terms of signage for the site, please find below for your reference the quantity and type.
Warning Signs & Equipment Present at the Peel Centre, Stockport
Entrance Sign: 4 No. 1500mm x 792mm
Repeater Sign: 29 No. 1220mm x 660mm
Tariff Board: 17 No. 1200mm x 1000mm
Pay Here Cones: 14 No. 605mm x 460mm
Disabled Pay at Machine Sign: 28 No. 300mm x 150mm
Pay & Display Machines: 14 No.
The Code of Practice states that signs must be at least 450mm x 450mm. With the former in mind would you not agree we not only adhere to, but exceed signage standards?
To offer you further insight into the layout of the Car Park, I would refer you to the attached photographs that clearly show signage throughout the site. To confirm, the majority of the signs are back to back (double sided) in order that they can be clearly seen from all areas/angles of the car park. Furthermore, Mr Cutts attended the Peel Centre with his 13 year old son, thus one would have expected them to take the safest and most direct route to their chosen retailer, JJB Sports. I have attached a photograph highlighting this route, which passes over three Zebra Crossings and takes you within a foot of a P&D Machine and accompanying back to back tariff sign.
To conclude this question, the Parking Industry, as with many other industry sectors, are often advised or offered guidance in terms of Best Practice via their respective governing or advisory Bodies. Such Forums are made up from members and stakeholders from outside of their specific sector i.e. consumer groups, motoring organisations and legal representatives, thus allowing for greater opportunities to share best practice and development for the sector in question. This is the case with the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme and the Code of Practice.
As such, when you then consider that the BPA, the Police's own association with the 'Park Mark', the Safer Parking Scheme Award, which the Peel Centre is proud to have achieved, as well as 99.6% of our customers at the Peel Centre acknowledging the signage in situ, clearly this confirms that the site is known as a Pay & Display car park. It is for these reasons the signage remains the same.
Q2) What assurances can Excel give to motorists that the company is committed to providing clear information to motorists, given the revenue generated from this one car park alone and the decision not to alter the signs?
A2) The Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking compliance. Such a high compliance rate delivers unquestionable assurance to our customers. There are 14 highly prominent Pay & Display machines, supported by 'Tariff Boards' and 'Pay Here' signs. In total the car park benefits from 92 'Customer Information' signs.
Excel Parking Services have been members of the BPA for over 17 years. We have also actively contributed to enhancing Best Practice within the industry throughout the whole of this time. We have also been instrumental in bringing about improvements to the private parking sector and will continue to call for further action and development of legislation resulting in definitive improvements for the industry as a whole.
Q3) How does Excel respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?
A3) As previously outlined above, we as a business are totally committed to the goals set out within the Code of Practice, and we will continue to work closely with the BPA to bring about an improved experience for consumers and operators alike as our industry evolves. The Code of Practice is extremely consumer focused, and with stringent independent annual audits, we are confident that consumers receive a high degree of protection. Accordingly, we will continue to encourage changes in legislation bringing about greater transparency for all parties.
We would also like to state for the record that we fully support, and welcome, the introduction of an Independent Appeals Service that will come in to effect via the impending changes brought about by the Protection of Freedoms Bill from October 2012.
A British Parking Association (BPA) spokesperson said:
1. Why has the BPA decided that Excel does not need to change the signs in the Peel Centre car park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?
The BPA has not required Excel's signs to be changed because they remain compliant with our Code of Practice. While the case involving Mr Cutts was noted by our compliance team, numerous similar court cases, not reported on by Watchdog, have found in favour of Excel, in which Judges have determined that signage is comprehensive and visible.
This inconsistency represents a problem for the BPA since we cannot change the regulation for the sector every time such a decision is made. We must therefore use all the information and context available to us to make the Code of Practice as pragmatic and as effective as possible.
2. Why does the BPA believe that these signs meet the AOS Code of Practice, despite motorists clearly not finding the information clear and visible?
We do not accept that motorists are 'not finding the information clear and visible'. During the period in question almost 2.9 million motorists followed the instructions on the signs at the Peel Centre in Stockport without difficulty - a compliance rate of 99.63%.
Nevertheless, the signs used by Excel have been fully checked by BPA's compliance team on a visit to the site, who have confirmed that they do not breach our Code of Practice.
3. What assurances can the BPA give to motorists that both the BPA and its member companies are committed to providing clear information to motorists, despite the decision not to change the car parks signs detailed above - and given the revenue generated from car parks such as this?
The BPA's Code of Practice exists solely to improve standards in the private parking industry, and therefore, to protect motorists. We review it regularly, in close consultation with bodies including; The AA, The RAC Foundation, The Citizens Advice Bureau, Consumer Focus, The Office of Fair Trading, Disabled Motoring UK, and a number of others.
The Code of Practice will be comprehensively reviewed this summer and we do intend to look closely at the clauses relating to signage.
We are currently working on the design and implementation of an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) for motorists ticketed on private land, which we have campaigned tirelessly for over the last decade and which the Government has finally sanctioned.
We have done everything in our power to ensure that the motorist is protected from rogue parking operators but unfortunately, the BPA simply does not have the authority to regulate the private parking industry any further than it already does.
4. How does the BPA respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?
The AOS was created in 2007 in the absence of any other effective regulation of the Private Parking Industry. As such, it is still developing and improving.
We now have a robust Sanctions Scheme where, if members are found to be in breach of the Code, sanctions points are awarded which can eventually result in expulsion. Currently, 29 members have sanction points on their record and five members have been expelled from the Scheme.
We have a dedicated Compliance Manager and have conducted over 2000 investigations into member behaviour last year following complaints from the public.
However, we believe that our Approved Operator Scheme is no substitute for legislation which regulates the sector. We have campaigned for many years for the Government to fully regulate private parking operators so that those who are currently not answerable to any authority can be held to account. A robust regulatory framework enshrined in law is the fairest and most effective way to achieve this but the Government have consistently refused to take this important step to protect motorists.
Excel Parking Services Ltd