Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 26th Mar 17, 11:30 PM
    • 31Posts
    • 25Thanks
    Couldey
    Ecp pcn
    • #1
    • 26th Mar 17, 11:30 PM
    Ecp pcn 26th Mar 17 at 11:30 PM
    Evening all,

    My mother received a PCN from Euro Car Parks through the post on Friday gone, which shows her car number plate entering the car park, then exiting the car park 16 minutes later, only her number plates are pictured twice.

    The car park is private land by the looks of it (in London, pay and display) and a member of the BPA. The PCN offers a discount if paid within the first 14 days.

    As she wasn't driving and is a blue badge holder which was displayed correctly at the time, does she have grounds to appeal? She wasn't driving the car, but dad was as she cannot, due to being on crutches. She is the registered keeper and parked in the disabled bay.

    Reading online info, I understand her blue badge doesn't entitle her to park anywhere in the world, which I have reminded her. But going by the sticky thread in the forum, it recommends to appeal. The borough council says it's free for blue badge holders at pay and display car parks, but the ECP car park is not run by the council I believe due to being private land.

    I have checked out the car park myself and the signs are not 100% clear, as they are high up on the lamp post. However, it does state "No concessions for disabled badge holders". Should she pay the PCN? Or go down the appeals route?

    If she appeals, would the below template be appropriate? If, so, what else should be added? Half of me is thinking to just pay it, other half is thinking to appeal.

    Thank you in advance
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Template appeal for BPA members - copy this wording into the online appeal box or into an email:

    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,


    THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER GOES HERE. THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

    NO NEED TO USE YOUR REAL SIGNATURE - BUT DON'T POST UNLESS YOU HAVE TO - ALWAYS USE THE ONLINE APPEAL PAGE BECAUSE THE APPEAL CANNOT GET LOST AND YOU CAN KEEP A SCREEN PRINT. USE ANY EMAIL APPEAL OPTION IF FIRMS OFFER IT.
Page 2
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 27th Apr 17, 4:40 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Hi,

    I have had an email from Popla regarding the appeal. They have attached the evidence pack, which is 40 pages in total, 2 pages of case summary, copies of the PCN and our submission copies, various images of the car, lots of the signage and T's & C's. Also the clients details.

    I understand I have to do the below, but any advice would be appreciated. I have 6 days to add comments to Popla. Thank you.



    How can I comment on the evidence sent to POPLA, they've written a lot and shown lots of pictures of signs?!

    Look through the evidence and find things to rebut - such as the signage being pants/nothing to show how close the car was to a sign. Or the witness statement/contract being heavily redacted, out of date, not signed by the landowner.

    Try Googling the name of the signatory purportedly from the landowner - question, who really is that person? For example we've seen contracts ostensibly signed by people who left the Country and their position, two years before(!) and we've seen 'Premier Park' supply lots of witness statements signed by what looks like their OWN STAFF ('Rachael Smith' and 'Clive Stevens' are two such recycled names who apparently own almost all locations!).

    Put the POPLA verification code correctly in the email subject line and attach a rebuttal of the operator's case, blow by blow (but make it CONCISE) without naming the driver. Do not re-write your appeal or call it 'an appeal' or POPLA will not read it.

    Examples of evidence 'comments' here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69778312#post69778312

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69835948#post69835948

    You can use the 'Portal' to add comments but that only stays open for six days and restricts your word count badly, and doesn't allow photos, so emailing a PDF rebuttal to POPLA is best, even if the Portal comments box is closed. For example, you may want to copy the operator's own signage photos and point out how they do not prominently show the amount of the parking charge itself in large letters, which is in breach of 2(3) of schedule 4 of the POFA and contrary to the BPA code of practice AND means the sign is not clear or prominent enough to form any contract with a driver before parking.

    If you can't read the £ of the charge (some signs do not even have the sum on them) you can't agree to pay it so don't just accept the version of the sign shown in close up, look at their evidence of your car near a sign - can you read the £sum of the parking charge?
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 27th Apr 17, 5:29 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Also anyone know if I can get the evidence pack loaded up here? But deleting/blanking out names, numbers etc?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Apr 17, 12:49 AM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have had an email from Popla regarding the appeal. They have attached the evidence pack,
    No, you've surely had an email from the parking firm, not POPLA.

    Also anyone know if I can get the evidence pack loaded up here? But deleting/blanking out names, numbers etc?
    Yes and then host it in Dropbox or similar and share the URL but 'break' it by changing http to hxxp as you are not quite able to post working links.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 28th Apr 17, 10:22 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    No, you've surely had an email from the parking firm, not POPLA.
    Hi Coupon-mad,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I've had an email from info@popla.co.uk, who have stated the below:

    Dear XXXXXXX,

    Your parking charge appeal against Euro Car Parks.

    Euro Car Parks has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here.

    You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Euro Car Parks.

    Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

    Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment.

    If you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Euro Car Parks such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

    Yours Sincerely,

    POPLA Team



    I've also uploaded most of the evidence pack on my photobucket, not all as half of it is signage.

    hxxp://s149.photobucket.com/user/LCRuser/library/

    I welcome your comments/advice/next steps
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Apr 17, 10:50 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ah, OK apologies, I found this confusing which suggested the email attached the evidence:
    They have attached the evidence pack,
    We will take a look!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 28th Apr 17, 11:25 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    No worries and sorry about the confusion!

    If there's any issues with the photobucket uploads, please let me know.
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 2nd May 17, 8:17 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Evening bump

    Coupon-mad, are you able to asssit with the above? Or anyone as I only have until tommrow to put comments in, tonight's my only chance really due to being at work tommrow.

    Thank you
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 2nd May 17, 10:11 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Late night bump!

    Sorry about this as I need to submit my Popla appeal by tomorrow, can anyone help
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd May 17, 10:58 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would answer that:

    - the contract shows no expiry date and there is no evidence that it is still current since 2014

    - the signatory name is unidentifiable.

    - the signatory company is another middle-man agent, not the landowner:

    https://www.linkedin.com/company/leighton-hamilton-management

    - there is no evidence that authority flows from the actual Landowner to Euro Car Parks.

    - the contract is dependent upon full compliance including point #6 which states: 'any particular conditions or restrictions must be clearly set out...' (on signage).

    - The restrictions are not clearly set out. The entrance sign shown by the operator states: 'maximum stay 2 hours' which conflicts completely with the larger sign which provides for a stay of 4 hours. This cannot by any level of scrutiny, be deemed 'clear'.

    - there are no images at all of any signs near the disabled bays, which are required under the BPA CoP so that a disabled driver/passenger can read the terms without getting out of the car. This was not the case, as per my appeal, which explains why just driving in, finding a space (no signs) getting out of the car to search for signs and find out the terms and decide to leave, took a very reasonable 16 minutes. This is quick when compared to able-bodied drivers, given that an occupant of the car has significant mobility issues and was using crutches.

    - the BPA CoP states:

    27 Disabled motorists
    27.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to
    the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove
    barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.


    27.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are
    likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the
    entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility
    is impaired. It also could include lowered payment
    machines and other ways to pay if payment is required:
    for example, paying by phone. You and your staff need to
    realise that some disabled people may take a long time to
    get to the payment machine.


    18.10 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to
    use the site,
    there should be at least one sign containing the
    terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without
    needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close
    to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.


    There is no evidence of the disabled bay signs (if any) and the occupants of the car state that there were no signs adjacent to those bays so the car had only passed the misleading 'maximum stay 2 hours' entrance sign and the driver neither saw nor accepted any other terms (2 hours being wrong anyway, yet that sign is in the evidence pack).

    I appealed on the above basis, these are not new points but are my comments on the evidence which have failed to establish that the PCN was properly given, under the circumstances described, bearing in mind the lack of disabled bay signs and how long it took to decide whether to stay or go. The usual 'minimum ten minutes' grace period cannot apply to disabled motorists where they had to go in search of the terms, found out it was not free, got back into the car (with crutches) and drove out.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-05-2017 at 11:00 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 3rd May 17, 12:26 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Once again Coupon-mad you amaze me! Thank you for your help and prompt reply too!

    I have submitted the above directly to POPLA via PDF and will update you once I get the decision. Fingers crossed
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 21st May 17, 7:31 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Just checked my emails and saw POPLA have given there decision and it's SUCCESSFUL!

    Coupon-mad your amazing!! Cannot thank you enough for your help on this matter. I would rather pay you the £45!!

    I have to say, I never thought we would get a successful outcome, so glad I came to MSE and met Coupon-mad

    Saying the above, the second appeal ref has come through the post, but i'l do another post on that shortly.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Kirsty XXX
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist’s vehicle was parked without the motorist purchasing a valid pay and display/permit.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and has not named the driver. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCN. • The appellant does not feel that the signage at the site is prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • The appellant says that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The appellant does not believe that the signage warns drivers of what the data that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras capture will be used for. • The appellant does not believe that the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in transferring liability to the registered keeper of the vehicle or the driver. • The appellant says that the grace periods are unclear and have not been applied properly.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Reviewing the information provided in relation to this appeal, it appears that the registered keeper is appealing the charge. The appellant has not provided a full name and address for the driver to the operator, and as such, the operator is pursuing the keeper. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the PoFA must be adhered to. The operator has provided evidence of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) that has been issued. Paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of PoFA states: “(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2) The notice must – (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under the paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).” Upon reviewing the NTK provided by the parking operator, I can see that the date issued is 12 March 2017. The NTK states “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you”. The date the letter was given was 21 March 2017, however it states the date issued is 12 March 2017. As such, the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012 and I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN incorrectly. While I appreciate that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, as I have already allowed the appeal on this ground there is no need for me to further consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    Last edited by Couldey; 21-05-2017 at 9:30 PM.
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 21st May 17, 9:06 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    On the back of the first appeal which has been successful (again thank you Coupon-mad), a second letter has come through the post to mum last Friday.

    To summarise what that was for:


    First PCN relates to when she did a test run with dad to the doctors and parked in the ECP car park for 16 mins. Appeal successful.

    Second PCN was when she had the appointment, 22nd March, then ECP sent notification dated 06th April - received on the back of the first appeal letter "Please be advised there is another PCN xxxxxxxxxxx issued to the VRM XXXX XXX on 22/03 at xxx location for "no valid pay and display/permit was purchased" and is currently at £XX.XX".

    No actual PCN/NTK received, just the above notification highlighted in red on the back of the first letter appeal.

    This was appealed 12/04 via ECP online portal.

    Received a rejection letter from ECP with a POPLA appeal number this Friday gone, stating that we have 28 days to appeal.

    The letter states the time of issue, breach of terms and conditions: D failure to adhere to signage on site.

    Below is a summary of the letter, slightly different to the first one sent.

    "The car park is pay and display - a valid P&D ticket must be purchased and placed in your vehicle to cover the duration of your stay. The car park is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system - cameras capture images of every vehicle upon entry/exit.

    Ecp does not need to provide evidence of who was driving, it's the registered keepers responsibility to inform the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012, ecp have the right subject of the act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle.

    Any form of parking ticket or notice is issued under the law of trespass and contract law. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.

    The protection of freedoms act (pofa) does not alter the principle of driver liability. What it does do, is allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges when the land owner or their agent, the parking operator does not know who the driver was at the time.

    You must enter the correct vehicle VRN and this information is directed to the camera system. I can confirm that no P&D ticket matching your VRN was purchased at the times of the T&C's. The signage is clear.

    Please be advised that signage on site clearly states that there is no concessions for disabled drivers and pay and display must be purchased.

    Your disabled handbook also states when parking on private land that restrictions will apply. Please see the attached image of the signage on site that clearly states failure to comply with the car park regulations will result in the issue of a PCN. It is clear from your communication that you did not read the signage at this site , which is your responsibility as the driver. Please pay £45 at the discounted rate via etc etc etc"


    Then appeal no given and 2 images of mum's car plus one of the signage.
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 21st May 17, 9:25 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    The below is the same template used on the first POPLA appeal, would this be ok to use?

    Should I include a line in section 6 to state, “No PCN/NTK has in fact been issued to the keeper”?

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Vehicle Registration Number xxxxxxxx
    PCN Reference xxxxxxxxxxx
    Issued by Euro Car Parks Limited
    POPLA Reference.xxxxxxxxxx

    As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1.No evidence of Landowner Authority
    2.The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    3.BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.
    4.The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
    5.No Keeper Liability
    6.No Driver Liability
    7.Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

    1. 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

    2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    3. BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.

    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident that you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

    The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp on the photographs nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).

    The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the photographs. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

    4. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

    Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside the car park.

    It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.

    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

    This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

    www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

    Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
    (a) the commercial practice omits material information,

    (b) the commercial practice hides material information,

    (c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

    (d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,

    and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''

    It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 21st May 17, 9:29 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    5. No Keeper Liability

    The Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park.
    These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities, from two photos of a car in moving traffic, timed hours apart.

    Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

    You cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known phenomenon).

    Here are just three examples of BPA member ANPR evidence failures, including a court loss and an ICO investigation:

    parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/highview-parking-spurred-into-immediate.html

    parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html

    parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html

    This 'double dip' fault in ANPR evidence is a fact confirmed by the BPA in the following article:

    britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

    As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
    ''Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

    The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;

    The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

    POFA 2012, paragraph 9(3) states;

    “The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)”

    If the ANPR system has picked up two separate occasions then it would fail on the above ruling as two separate PCNs should be issued, assuming the vehicle in question had breached the contract terms, and not just the one that was sent to the Keepers address. I put the operator to strict proof that there was only one period of parking, because this is a mandatory requirement for keeper liability also stated clearly in Schedule 4.

    Consequently, Euro Car Parks has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    If Euro Car Parks should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

    The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

    transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

    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.”

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.''

    The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the flaws in the NTK. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

    This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report:

    ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    6. No Driver Liability

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. The keeper was not driving but is disabled and had a valid blue badge on display at the time.

    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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    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.''


    7.Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

    The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.

    The CoP states:

    “13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go...”
    “13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.”

    For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

    Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

    Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods
    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    The observation period (at the start)

    The ANPR photos on the PCN show an arrival time of 12:37 and a departure time of 12.53 – an alleged stay of 16 minutes.
    No evidence has been provided as to the trustworthiness of the timing system used to generate the date stamps attached to the photographs (please also see points relating to both these issues below)

    The BPA (Kelvin Reynolds is the Director of Policy & Public Affairs) is on record as shown above, as saying that the 'observation period' at the start might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes, depending on various factors”.

    The alleged overstay, given Kelvin Reynolds' defined 'observation time' and the type of businesses at the location is certainly possible. Time would have been taken just driving in, no doubt in a queue, dodging groups of pedestrians carrying shopping and also waiting for other cars turning and reversing to park or leave, before reaching an empty bay then parking. The keeper of the car (passenger) is disabled, having to use crutches as a permanent walking aid to remain mobile, which significantly slows the mobility of the keeper.

    Disabled Motorists

    The Disabled Motorists section of the BPA CoP quote operators have to take into account that it will take a disabled person longer than an able-bodied person, to get to any machine/sign to read the terms and conditions and also the instructions of the machine.

    “16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.
    16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.
    In this instance, the driver and passenger decided not to accept those terms, got back into the car (which took longer for the disabled passenger) and left the site within a perfectly few reasonable few minutes, given the circumstances. “

    Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park and unreliability of time stamped evidence on the photographs supplied, I contend that the PCN was not properly given.


    I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA), the BPA Code of Practice and case law (Beavis) undoubtedly supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st May 17, 10:22 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So glad you won! Must admit, we do these on the expectation of winning every time, as we almost always do. Hooray!!

    Should I include a line in section 6 to state, “No PCN/NTK has in fact been issued to the keeper”?
    Yes I would, and maybe try to win in the same way as the first one. Something like:



    Even if Euro Car Parks show POPLA a Notice to Keeper (NTK) I can state that no such NTK was ever served in this instance. There were, apparently, two parking events, and one has already been won at POPLA under ref xxxxxxxxxxx on the basis of non-compliance regarding that NTK.

    But in this case, was no such NTK document served at all. As registered keeper, the first I knew of this 'charge' was on the back of the first appeal rejection letter "Please be advised there is another PCN xxxxxxxxxxx issued to the VRM XXXX XXX on 22/03 at xxx location for "no valid pay and display/permit was purchased" and is currently at £XX.XX". That was the only notification, and fails to meet the requirements of the POFA Schedule 4. On any interpretation, no NTK served means the PCN was never properly given.

    In the alternative, if ECP show a phantom NTK (which was never served, so would be from their imaginary records and something I will immediately report to the BPA) I contend that it will surely fail compliance, on the same basis as the other POPLA appeal xxxxxxxxxx where Kirsty xxxx decided on xx/x/17 that: ''The date the letter was given was 21 March 2017, however it states the date issued is 12 March 2017. As such, the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012 and I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN incorrectly.'' I suggest that even if POPLA is minded to believe the operator if they show a ghost NTK, that NTK does not meet the POFA 2012 requirements, and was never served at all.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 17th Jun 17, 12:56 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Afternoon all/Coupon-mad,

    So i'm at the stage of providing POPLA comments (this is the 2nd PCN, first one was successful) and they have given me 7 days to do this (Tuesday mid-day is the deadline), since ECP have uploaded their evidence pack.

    I will use most of the comments from the first PCN (below), but a few things have come to light this time.

    1. ECP have stated that they sent my mum a PCN, but she has never received one. It only came to light that there was a second PCN on the back of the first rejection letter from ECP. I've uploaded this to my photobucket.

    2. On the ECP contract/code of practice in section 5, it says "The services to be provided by the parties will be fully detailed in the agreement running from 21 July 2016 to 21 July 2019" - however, the signed agreement for the management company and ECP shows the document signed before the 21st of July 2016 but in fact is dated 06 July 2016. I'm not sure this matters or not? Again, i've uploaded this on my photobucket and it's the last two pages - 12/13.

    hxxp://s149.photobucket.com/user/LCRuser/library/

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    - the contract shows no expiry date and there is no evidence that it is still current since 2014

    - the signatory name is unidentifiable.

    - the signatory company is another middle-man agent, not the landowner:

    https://www.linkedin.com/company/leighton-hamilton-management

    - there is no evidence that authority flows from the actual Landowner to Euro Car Parks.

    - the contract is dependent upon full compliance including point #6 which states: 'any particular conditions or restrictions must be clearly set out...' (on signage).

    - The restrictions are not clearly set out. The entrance sign shown by the operator states: 'maximum stay 2 hours' which conflicts completely with the larger sign which provides for a stay of 4 hours. This cannot by any level of scrutiny, be deemed 'clear'.

    - there are no images at all of any signs near the disabled bays, which are required under the BPA CoP so that a disabled driver/passenger can read the terms without getting out of the car. This was not the case, as per my appeal, which explains why just driving in, finding a space (no signs) getting out of the car to search for signs and find out the terms and decide to leave, took a very reasonable 16 minutes. This is quick when compared to able-bodied drivers, given that an occupant of the car has significant mobility issues and was using crutches.

    - the BPA CoP states:

    27 Disabled motorists
    27.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to
    the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove
    barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

    27.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are
    likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the
    entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility
    is impaired. It also could include lowered payment
    machines and other ways to pay if payment is required:
    for example, paying by phone. You and your staff need to
    realise that some disabled people may take a long time to
    get to the payment machine.

    18.10 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to
    use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the
    terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without
    needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close
    to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.

    There is no evidence of the disabled bay signs (if any) and the occupants of the car state that there were no signs adjacent to those bays so the car had only passed the misleading 'maximum stay 2 hours' entrance sign and the driver neither saw nor accepted any other terms (2 hours being wrong anyway, yet that sign is in the evidence pack).

    I appealed on the above basis, these are not new points but are my comments on the evidence which have failed to establish that the PCN was properly given, under the circumstances described, bearing in mind the lack of disabled bay signs and how long it took to decide whether to stay or go. The usual 'minimum ten minutes' grace period cannot apply to disabled motorists where they had to go in search of the terms, found out it was not free, got back into the car (with crutches) and drove out.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jun 17, 9:38 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would point out that ECP have clearly been using 'cut & paste' POPLA evidence pack with no scrutiny:

    - 'MRS' is called 'him/his vehicle' at least twice.

    - it says it's clear that the appellant was the driver, from the first appeal (surely not?).


    Point #3 and #5 of that contract letter talks about an 'agreement' between the parties which which show the restrictions and definition of services. But ECP have failed to enclose it, so how does POPLA know whether the agreement allows them to penalise disabled visitors, who may well be defined as exempt, within the secret agreement. What the signs say can't be relied upon, clearly, as they can't even decide if the maximum stay is 2 hours or four.

    Point #10 of the contract contradicts point #6 completely, showing that it is not compliant with the BPA CoP. This letter does not give the parking operator any authority to pursue cases through the courts. It says the opposite, that the client retains that right and would have to authorise ECP in writing. So, ECP are only an agent, merely glorified letter-writers on behalf of an agent, and have shown no evidence that they can pursue cases through the courts.

    ECP have included a summary 'Appendix A' of the CoP about landowner contracts, and proved by their own evidence that they have failed to comply with #5, #6 and #7.

    Finally, if the 'date issued' is before the 'letter date' point that out to POPLA. Can't be so.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 18th Jun 17, 8:53 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Thank you again Coupon-mad, comments have been submitted.

    I'l be back with the outcome!
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 27th Jun 17, 8:22 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    So the second PCN decision has been made..........SUCCESSFUL!!

    Coupon-mad you done it again! I thank you for all your time and effort you've put into assisting me with both these PCN's, giving the advice and prompt replies, you've been immense! Mum also says thank you.




    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Saf*** ******
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: • No evidence of Landowner Authority • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself • BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras. • No Keeper Liability • No Driver Liability • Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator issued a PCN to the appellant as no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: • No evidence of Landowner Authority • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself • BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras. • No Keeper Liability • No Driver Liability • Grace periods unclear and not properly applied When a parking operator is pursuing a keeper as liable for a charge, it must satisfy the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Within PoFA 2012 it states at Paragraph 9(2)(f) that the notice to keeper must: “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” As such, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’. Within PoFA 2012, it further states that: “a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.” Therefore, it is clear that the date the Notice to Keeper was posted is the key date in determining when the 28-day period begins. Having considered the Notice to Keeper sent in this instance, the wording used is as follows: “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act.” However, I note that the “Date Issued” referred to above is not the date the Notice to Keeper was posted and is instead, the date of the parking event. As such, it is clear that while the operator has attempted to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, its reference to the “Date Issued” is incorrect and the impact of this is that the keeper would not be given the correct length of time to provide details of the driver. On this basis, I can only conclude that the Notice to Keeper would fail to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jun 17, 8:37 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No worries, it's why we all come here after work every day, to beat these scumbags!

    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

249Posts Today

1,392Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin