ECP Appeal Rejected after following MSE Advice

the_wheels_have_fallen_of wrote: »

Comments please if poss !

Dear ISPA

I am writing to you to complain about my recent experiences with POPLA and to report xsomex a number of serious procedural errors and inconsistences xwithx in a number of decisions that POPLA adjudicators have made within the last 12 months regarding Church Farm Car Park, Stockton Heath, Warrington. The car park is run xwhich is ranx by Euro Car Parks, specifically on landowner authority – all of the appeals considered in the last 12 months therefore concern the same contract, and the same car park. [start a new sentence here as it's getting confusing] – iIn fact, one of my pieces of evidence xaroundx concerning inconsistencies was regarding a rebuttal to ECP evidence xwhich wasx submitted by another appellant on the same day as xIx my appeal was submitted - that appeal xand yetx was allowed on Landowner authority x–x. Yyet my appeal – relying on the same issue of Landowner authority - was rejected.

[if you are able to specify the other appeals which were successful on landowner authority, including the one you mention above, give the details so it is easy for Popla to look at them when considering your complaint - you mention these below, I think it is better to include them up here]

Its is clear that POPLA have performed poorly in this case and have not been effective in considering ALL points that I raised and have been biased only to those raised by the car park operator, Euro Car Parks. The issue of landowner authority has been applied in an entirely inconsistent manner by POPLA - in some cases you have accepted that there is no such authority, in other cases you have rejected the same argument.


The POPLA assessor has made a fundamental procedural error in not allowing my appeal on landowner authority when it is easily demonstrated that Euro Car Parks have no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park (a matter which POPLA has accepted in many other appeals concerning the same car park, the same landowner, the same parking company and the same alleged contract).


I have enclosed the relevant xartefactsx documents appertaining to this case as follows:


1. Original complaint to ECP
2. Original complaint to POPLA
3. ECP Evidence Pack
4. Rebuttal to ECP Evidence Pack
5. POPLA Decision
6. Complaint to Mr Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator - POPLA

This can be referenced, as per my research of successful POPLA appeals in the public domain during the last year (POPLA references 2410986482, 2410337543 and 2413376910)


Additionally, having researched information in the public domain regarding planning permission sought by Euro Car Parks in 2011 with Warrington Council, it is clear that Euro Car Parks do not have any landowner authority to form contracts with drivers at Church Farm, Stockton Heath nor to pursue charges. I quote from Euro Car Parks’ original planning application:

“The site is the car park for Church Farm Retail Park which has a number of retail shops and
restaurants around the car park. The site is managed by Burley Development Group. The
ANPR will be used to monitor any entry and exit to the site. This information will be used to
see the flow of traffic within the car park and allow retailers to identify busy shopping periods.
It will also be used as a security measure to monitor vehicle registrations.”


It is clear, therefore, that planning consent was applied for (and therefore granted) only in relation to monitoring vehicles in order to ease the flow of traffic and to identify busy periods, and for security - it was not applied for so that cars could be ticketed and drivers penalised.


Notwithstanding the legal issues here surrounding landowner authority, I wish to also complain about POPLA’s ignorance of other inaccuracies in the evidence pack that was provided by ECP.


The evidence pack that was provided was clearly a cut and shut, cut and paste job that was fraught with incaccuracies; the POPLA assessor did not consider this point at all in his case review and it is clear due to the poor pack that was provided by ECP that this was a template that has been generically applied and has been cut and pasted from other evidence packs.


There are also inaccuracies in the parking hours/terms and conditions of parking – again which the POPLA assessor chose to ignore for no justifiable reason. Namely ECP state in their evidence pack that terms and conditions of parking are maximum 2 hours from 0600 – 2159, yet further on in the document refers to the parking conditions are 1.5 hours. More inaccuracies that cannot be relied upon – which is correct ?!

ECP also states that an official appeal representation was received by xxxx (Appellant) on 13 November 2016 – bizarrely, this is 10 days before the alleged parking offence was committed on 23 November 2016!

Additionally, as well as writing to complain to Mr Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator at POPLA, I have now also complained to the DVLA as Euro Car Parks have no landowner or legal authority to pursue charges at this car park and a Breach of the Data Protection Act has occurred which I have complained to the DVLA for breach of Kadoe Contract.

I have also complained to the Landowner, Burley Developments, that Euro Car Parks have no standing to issue or pursue charges at this car park and I have also reported Euro Car Parks to Warrington Borough Council as Euro Car Parks are in breach of planning permission.

I look forward to hearing your considered response, bearing in mind the overwhelming evidence that I have provided that my Appeal to POPLA should have been upheld.