Euro car park parking charge notice

verynicelady · 18 May 2017 at 9:04PM

Just want to thank you for your help with the popla template appeals points, just can't fathom all the legal jargon it's so confusing what to and what not to add in. I don't know where to start and will no doubt get it all the wrong way round and end up losing but many thanks again for your help.

Umkomaas · 18 May 2017 at 9:18PM

verynicelady wrote: »

Could I just ask, is it the original NTK you want or the latest received, thanks :rotfl:

Date of alleged infringement

Date of receipt of first letter/communication from the PPC.

Coupon-mad · 19 May 2017 at 12:55AM

verynicelady wrote: »

Just want to thank you for your help with the popla template appeals points, just can't fathom all the legal jargon it's so confusing what to and what not to add in. I don't know where to start and will no doubt get it all the wrong way round and end up losing but many thanks again for your help.

Yes you can, all other newbies do. It's not legalese, the points are long but just words and perfectly understandable. Have a look over the weekend.

I'm astonished you weren't expecting the rejection letter, you posted as if it was unexpected! You even thought you had to pay £60 which I can't believe you even read (why bother?) let alone believed. Why do you read their words but not ours?

I've already written your POPLA appeal for you in the templates and cannot rewrite it just because people are scared of long paragraphs and stop reading. Look again, you can do this. This is so easy for you.

verynicelady · 20 May 2017 at 9:53PM

hxxp://feed1.tinypic.com/rss.php?u=c388rDZ6OdWSOgdhMVBYIQ%3D%3D

Please see updated first letter from ECP as requested for your perusal. Thanks VNLady

verynicelady · 20 May 2017 at 11:48PM

Hi Coupon-Mad
Here is what I plan to submit. I would be grateful if you could let me know if this is ok please? I have also uploaded a copy of the first letter as a colleague said they would look through it.

Kind Regards Very Nice Lady

POPLA Ref ...................
Parking PCN no .......................

A notice to keeper was issued on 25th 03 17 and received by me, the registered keeper of .....on 3rd 04 17 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at Kay St Bolton. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
2) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)
3) Amount demanded is a penalty
4) Landowner Authority

1) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

2) Reasonable Grace Period
As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: 'You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'. 90 seconds, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
3) Amount demanded is a penalty
Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.
4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Coupon-mad · 21 May 2017 at 5:24PM

I couldn't get your link to work, so couldn't check the dates and wording on the NTK.

I noticed that you have copied the wrong parking firm into the appeal so you do need to proof-read it to change it to Euro Car Parks:

and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

verynicelady · 21 May 2017 at 6:05PM

Many thanks for looking over the letter, other than the change of car park is it ok. I have tried to upload the links again, hope you can see them.

http://i63.tinypic.com/11l3ktc.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/hrc287.jpg

Thanks again :rotfl:

Umkomaas · 21 May 2017 at 7:03PM

90 seconds, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

CM has spotted the incorrect PPC being referenced here, but where does '90 seconds' come from?

Looking at your photo links your PCN is for a stay of 16 minutes.

You really must proof read your draft very carefully; why are we picking these errors up, not you?

verynicelady · 21 May 2017 at 7:39PM

Thanks for reading my letter, I have said I'm not the sharpest tool in the draw and would get things wrong. I have a lot going on in my life with a son who suffers from ADHD and a husband who's just lost his sight. So forgive me if I'm finding this a very difficult. It's hard to process and understand all the different threads. I've stayed up till late trying to process everything and am sorry for getting things wrong, "as I knew I would, so to save me all this stress I feeling I've decided to throw in my towel

and let the thieving scammers have the £60. Kind Regards

Umkomaas · 21 May 2017 at 9:09PM

as I knew I would, so to save me all this stress I feeling I've decided to throw in my towel and let the thieving scammers have the £60

Oh, Jeez, this is just ECP. Just tidy up that POPLA appeal and get it off and you can look forward to paying them nothing.

You are falling into the trap they want you in - put you under immense pressure, and bingo, out pops 60 quid from your purse. That will do nicely to fund further attacks on even more vulnerable people - old ladies who have just lost their husbands who have no one else in this world to turn to; those who by paying them lose 2 weeks worth of food budget, and go without for a fortnight.

I sympathise with your circumstances, but, like you, I too have had really significant trauma in my own life (really serious trauma including losing those closest to me - I'll spare you the detail), but yet I know injustices when I see them and I surface above my own issues to help those who find it hard to cope with those injustices - just as I was in trying to help you.

Keep that £60 safe!

Euro car park parking charge notice

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free