ECP POPLA appeal

Hi Wheels, I have actually been looking at your thread and some of the details from yours I have directly copied and pasted.

Cheers Coupon, I was initially trying to keep it short but kind of got carried away. I'll condense it later and will take out the pictures.

I have until the 7th but will submit as soon as I can.

Yes I shall share it here first. Yes it does have that at the end of my evidence pack. It's clearly a template, obvious as I'm repeatedly called by She and has points I've not argued against. Specifically the NTK (same as yours) and Estimates of Loss. Both of which I will happily argue against. The Land Owner is clearly forged, the number 2 used by Plant is identical to 'Smiths' 2 in 2016 yet the number 29 looks like Smith used his foot to scribble it to cover it up. Both of which are wrongly dated to the supposed agreement.

And just Smith? I would really like to use a reference to the film Superbad for this point but will restrain myself.

This is the best I could condense down. Will still have to be emailed though.

Dear Sirs,

I received an evidence pack from ECP regarding the POPLA appeal xxxxxxx on the date 1/3/17 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 9/2/16:

1.ECP have claimed they have an agreement for operating from 26/2/13

The evidence that has been provided in Figure 3 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” dated 29/10/16! 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 26/2/13 has not been provided.

2.ECP have claimed that there is BPA sign showing time length at the entrance
In the pack ECP claim this is at the entrance of the car park. Using the measuring tool of Google Maps it shows this sign is 9 metres away as to where to photograph was taken. This is incorrect. The actual entrance is further back, some 32 metres between the road exit/car park entry and sign. Over 3 times the distance. It can be seen in their overview of the car park, which has used a Google image, that they have purposely missed out most of the entrance to make it seem the sign is closer.

3.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. 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.

In the evidence pack two photographs are dated – one of which is 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 also multiple mistakes in the evidence pack that show that this is a template that is likely repeatedly used.

4.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.

5.ECP claimed the Keeper made claims regarding the PCN, no such claims were made but evidence has arose that the Keeper did not see.
The letter titled ‘Notice to Keepr’ 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 (3/1/17) 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.

6.During the Case Summary page it has the maximum parking time set at 2 hours yet is mentioned throughout the rest of the pack as 1.5 hours.

7.ECP have also shown evidence for Pre Estimate of Loss although these 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.

8.ECP has also misapplied Fairlie vs Fenton:
Raising this point 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

Thing this will be my final draft if it is OK? If need be I can cut some more out

Dear Sirs,

I received an evidence pack from ECP regarding the POPLA appeal xxxxxxx on the date 1/3/17 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 9/2/16:

1.ECP have claimed they have an agreement for operating from 26/2/13

The evidence provided in Figure 3 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” is signed by “Robert Plant” and “Smith” – in the same handwriting! It also incorrectly dated. I assert that this document is fraudulent and the correct document showing landowner authority and dated 26/2/13 has not been provided.

2.ECP have claimed that there is BPA sign showing time length at the entrance
In the pack ECP claim this is at the entrance of the car park. Where the photograph was taken is around 9 metres away. This is incorrect. The actual entrance is further back, some 32 metres between the road exit/car park entry and sign. Over 3 times the distance. It can be seen in their overview of the car park that they have purposely missed out most of the entrance to make it seem like the sign is closer.

3.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. 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.

In the evidence pack two photographs are dated – one of which is 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 also multiple mistakes in the evidence pack that show that this is a template that is likely repeatedly used.

4.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.

5.ECP claimed the Keeper made claims regarding the PCN, no such claims were made but evidence has arose that the Keeper did not see.
The letter titled ‘Notice to Keepr’ 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 (3/1/17) 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.

6.During the Case Summary page it has the maximum parking time set at 2 hours yet is mentioned throughout the rest of the pack as 1.5 hours.

7.ECP have also shown evidence for Pre Estimate of Loss although these 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.

8.ECP has also misapplied Fairlie vs Fenton:
Raising this point 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