IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

ECP POPLA appeal

2456

Comments

  • rob84_2
    rob84_2 Posts: 34 Forumite
    Thank you for the help, i shall let you know how it goes.
  • rob84_2
    rob84_2 Posts: 34 Forumite
    Hi, just having a read through the appeal and was going to attach some pictures to it then noticed on the bottom of the sign it states the cameras are used for calculating length of stay which unfortunately overrules point number 4.

    Shall i keep point 4 in and not attach pictures and hope ECP dont pick up on it or shall i attach some pictures and delete point 4 or even find another point to add to it?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,646
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Yes, leave the pics out. The length of the appeal is often enough to make contesting it not worth their while.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • rob84_2
    rob84_2 Posts: 34 Forumite
    Appeal sent. Thank you for the help now just to wait.
  • rob84_2
    rob84_2 Posts: 34 Forumite
    All most 3 weeks after I've sent mine Euro Car Parks have sent me an evidence pack.

    Only had a quick look through it so far but a few things I've noticed is they repeatedly call me a she or her (can't help but think that is purposely done), they stated they sent an actual letter headed Notice to Keeper which I never received but has it dated well outside the 14 days that is needed.

    Have a BPA signed letter claiming land owner authority looks like its signed by Smith, no first name apparently, with the date in reverse (YYYY/MM/DD) with the number 2 looking completely different in the year and date.

    Showing evidence for pre estimate of loss which is something I've not argued against.

    And a load of pictures. One is showing the entrance but its not from the actual entrance so it makes the sign a lot more clear than it really is.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,646
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    OK so put those comments into the POPLA portal for your Assessor to take into account.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • rob84_2
    rob84_2 Posts: 34 Forumite
    edited 1 March 2017 at 3:20PM
    I have pictures on the road entrance, I won't be able to load that up to portal will I?

    A few others I've since noticed are right at the start they claim the maximum time of stay is 2 hours yet refer to it as 1 and half for the rest of the time.

    Something about the Fairline vs Fenton case which from what I've read on another thread is misused.

    References to the PCN being POFA acceptable, something I've not even denied.

    And embarrassingly claiming I sent my appeal in on the 9th Jan, a whole month before I actually did.

    The land owner authority is dated from October 2016 yet they say it's originally from Feb 2013.

    What is the cut off for a rebuttal? Friday is the original cut off date for my POPLA appear, according to the portal they are sat at stage 2 waiting for operator evidence.
  • rob84_2
    rob84_2 Posts: 34 Forumite
    edited 1 March 2017 at 11:14PM
    This will be rebuttal, could you have a look over it please.

    Dear Sirs,

    I received an evidence pack from ECP regarding the POPLA appeal xxxxxxx on the date 1st March 2017 and wish to provide the following to support my appeal and rebuttal of ECP’s evidence pack as per my original appeal to you dated 9th February 2016:

    ECP has stated:
    "As you can see from the copy of the COP agreement (Figure 3) held with Burley
    Developments Group. Upon review of this you will notice that this agreement has a
    commencement date of 26/02/2013; after which point it becomes an ongoing agreement with
    notice provisions for both parties. We can confirm that neither Burley Developments Group
    nor Euro has applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place.
    Consequently we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that the contract provided does
    adequately prove that Euro had sufficient authority to issue Parking Charges on the land, on
    the day of the contravention - 03/12/2016”


    The evidence that has been provided in Figure 3 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” dated 29 October 2016! Signed by “Robert Plant” and “Smith” – in the same handwriting! I assert that this document is fraudulent and the correct document showing landowner authority and dated 26 February 2013 has not been provided.

    ECP has stated:
    “I can confirm that on entrance to the car park of Church Farm – Warrington – there is a BPA
    Entrance Signage which clearly stated the car park is camera controlled and is a maximum
    stay of 1 1⁄2 hours. (Figure 2)”


    ECP claim there is a BPA Entrance Sign as shown in the photograph as part of the evidence here:
    (Evidence pack photograph of entrance)

    Yet the actual entrance from to the car park is much further back:
    (My own picture of the car park entrance)

    The photograph was taken during the same conditions as the alleged offence but it is clear that it is not obvious from the road that this is a camera controlled car park that enforces a penalty.

    ECP has stated on multiple occasions in their evidence that the signs are clear:

    The signs shown in the photographs provided in the evidence pack do not state any grace period and are therefore non compliant. The photographs shown of the alleged signage at the sight have clearly been blown up which makes the text illegible, especially the text at the bottom of the sign and are not shown from the drivers perspective whilst behind the wheel of the car. It is also worth noting that on a lot of the signs that have been shown in the evidence pack, the ‘Welcome to Church Farm’ is in larger lettering than the actual paragraph regarding the penalty, which seems to get lost in a wall of text.
    (My own picture of one of the signs inside the car park)

    In the evidence pack two photographs are dated, one as 5th June 2015 and is a cropped picture of the ANPR cameras and one 12th January 2017 – over 1 month after the alleged parking offence was committed. Other pictures have had their time and dated partially cropped out and the remaining have either had it completely cropped out or never had a time stamp added to them. No evidence has been provided by ECP to show that the signs shown in the photographs were in fact displayed on the date of the alleged offence.

    There are multiple mistakes in the evidence pack that show that this is a template that is likely repeatedly used.

    The Keeper of the vehicle is referred to multiple times during the pack as ‘Her’ or ‘She’ even though its clearly mentioned in the pack that it is a Mr they are appealing against.

    ECP has stated:
    “Please note the Parking Charge Notice (Section 2) does comply with the Schedule 4 of POFA (Figure 4)”


    The Keeper has not made any claims directly regarding the PCN but there has been evidence that is provided that has not been seen by the Keeper.
    The evidence shown in number 2 is the PCN that was originally sent to the Keepers address and then another letter titled as Notice to Keeper. The second letter was never received.
    ECP claim that the notices adhere to the rules of POFA 2012 and that the second Notice is a ‘reminder’ but is very clearly titled Notice to Keeper. This would seem that this is the genuine NtK that they are meant to serve, in which case they have to have it posted within 14 days and as you can see by the date issued (3rd January 2017) it is exactly a month after the alleged offense. If ECP are sending it as follow up to a Notice to Driver then this doesn’t meet the requirements of POFA 2012 as the NtD (the PCN in this case) was delivered by post and not handed directly to the driver or placed on the windscreen of the vehicle.

    Evidence 1 which shows the Case Summary has the maximum parking time set at 2 hours yet is mentioned throughout the rest of the pack as 1.5 hours. There is also reference to only 15 minutes maximum stay after 10pm till 5:59am which has no purpose in this case and is certainly not labelled on any sign in the evidence pack.

    Other claims that ECP are showing evidence for loss of earnings, specifically stated here:
    “With regards to the reference to “Pre-Estimate of Loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999.””
    And here:
    “We have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these that are identified. The parking charge in this instance was established after consideration of the following costs which we incur on each notice issued;
    - Wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions
    - IT systems, software, licences and peripherals
    - DVLA fees and processing costs
    - Costs in preparing and sending PCNs – Stationary, Postage and Printing
    - Legal, Accounting and other Professional Costs
    - Human Resources
    - Premises Costs
    - Vehicle and Telephone Costs
    - Loss of Pay and Display Ticket revenue generating from paying customers (where applicable)
    - Loss of purchase revenue to Retail Outlets within the car park”


    Theres claims have not been made by the Keeper but they will refuted anyway.

    The Department for Transport guidelines state that:
    "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

    I would conclude that the points that ECP Have raised regarding “fairness of the charge” are all business losses that ECP are trying to recover (and this is clearly articulated in their evidence pack). As is the 'remainder' to be paid back into office wages. Therefore, the charge is quite clearly to recover office losses.

    ECP has also misapplied Fairlie vs Fenton:
    “It must also be noted that any person who makes contract his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between Euro Car Parks and the motorist will be enforceable by Euro Car Parks as a party to that contract”

    The crucial part is 'renders himself personally liable'. Essentially this means the operator can sue the motorist if the motorist can sue the operator. In practice, this rarely is the case. The benefit to the motorist is the provision of a parking space, but if that goes wrong, the operator is quick to absolve themselves of responsibility. If the parking surface has a pothole and a vehicle suffers damage, or if the car park surface is covered in ice and the driver slips getting out of the car, then typically it will be the landowner the motorist sues, not the operator of a pair of cameras.
    ECP have not provided any evidence regarding why they believe that Fairlie vs Fenton 1870 applies in this case. The incorrect wording has clearly been provided to fill out their case and distract from the facts of the matter.

    In summary, the evidence provided by Euro Car Parks is full of inaccuracies. Land Ownership has not been provided sufficiently, Signage is not clear and most of the provided photographs have had date stamps removed or were never added to the original picture or taken after the offense, taken from a distance that makes them seem far more legible than they are. Contradictory information regarding parking times (2 hours verse 1.5 hours), incorrect references to the Keeper repeatedly referring to him as a Her or She and rebuttals to claims that were never made or have been misapplied.

    I ask you to review these and rule in my favour of my appeal.

    Yours faithfully,
    The owner
  • Hello there OP Rob84 - I am at the same stage as you with rebuttal with ECP - I have noticed the same inaccuracies - please look at my recent threads on this too
  • Hello again OP - I noticed that this is the same car park as my appeal at Church Farm, Stockton Heath, Warrington. I am submitting my rebuttal tomorrow in time for my Monday deadline.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards