Excel Parking v Cutts [2016]
Summary
Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts (Stockport County Court, 2016) is an unreported county court decision that has become widely cited in parking appeals. The judge observed that where an operator's signage emphasises the penalty charge far more prominently than the actual parking terms, this suggests the purpose is entrapment rather than information — which may defeat contract formation. The judgment also reinforced that strict compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 is required to transfer liability from driver to keeper.
Operative Text
The judge asked whether Excel had taken reasonable steps to draw to Cutts' attention the terms and conditions of using the car park. The judge observed: 'The lettering about failure to comply is about four times larger than the lettering saying it is a pay and display car park, which tells me the real interest is in failure to comply.' Principle: operators must demonstrate strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability from driver to keeper. Signage designed to entrap rather than inform may defeat contract formation.
What This Means for Your Ticket
This case established that where sign design prioritises the penalty charge over clear information about the parking terms, that design choice itself is evidence that the operator is not genuinely trying to inform motorists — undermining the contract formation argument. If the PCN charge amount is in a much larger font than the time limit or payment requirement, that is a signage compliance argument. The case is also regularly cited in POFA Schedule 4 arguments: Excel failed to comply with the procedural requirements, and the court upheld the defense.
What to Look for on the Signs at Your Site
The Cutts principle gives you additional signage arguments:
- ✓Is the penalty charge amount in a larger or more prominent font than the parking terms?
- ✓Is the time limit or payment requirement clearly visible, or buried in smaller text?
- ✓Does the sign's design appear to be designed to catch motorists out rather than inform them?
- ✓Check BPA/IPC Single Code, Clause 3.1.4: charges must be in a font of comparable size to the main body text
Persuasive Weight
County court decisions are not binding precedent but are persuasive at POPLA and IAS. This case is regularly cited by appellants in signage-related grounds. It is most effective when used alongside BPA/IPC Code non-compliance arguments.
Sources
- Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts (Stockport County Court, 2016) — unreported
- Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is this case binding on POPLA?
- No — county court decisions are not binding precedent. POPLA assessors are not required to follow Cutts, but they are entitled to consider it as persuasive authority. Cite it alongside the BPA/IPC Code clause that requires charges to be displayed in comparable font to main text.
- How do I use this case in my appeal?
- Photograph the signs at the site and measure the relative font sizes of the penalty charge amount versus the parking terms. If the charge is disproportionately prominent, cite Cutts for the principle that design revealing an intention to entrap rather than inform undermines contract formation.
- Does this only apply to pay-and-display car parks?
- The case involved a pay-and-display site, but the principle about signage designed to inform versus entrap applies to any private parking site. BPA/IPC Code Clause 3.1.4 (comparable font size for charges) applies regardless of parking type.
- What happened after the judge's comments on signage?
- The case is unreported, so the full judgment is not publicly available. What is known from subsequent citations is that Excel's claim failed on a combination of signage and POFA compliance grounds. The judge's comments on sign design intent are the most widely cited element.
Related
- inadequate-signage
- pofa-non-compliance
- late-notice
Got a ticket? Find out if you can win.
GetRighted checks your situation against all known defenses — free in under 2 minutes.
Check My Ticket