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
    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 11th Apr 17, 5:23 PM
    • 29Posts
    • 17Thanks
    verynicelady
    Euro car park parking charge notice
    • #1
    • 11th Apr 17, 5:23 PM
    Euro car park parking charge notice 11th Apr 17 at 5:23 PM
    Hi, could you please give me more information regarding a parking charge I received from ECP. I found myself lost so pulled off a dual carriageway onto what I now know to be private parking land owned by ECP.
    I was asking people if they knew where I was and for a postcode so I could download a satnav app on my phone. From the postal parking charge, I found out I was there for 16 minutes in total. Because I was lost I didn't even realise I had pulled onto a carpark I just wanted to be safe and off the carriageway.
    Should I pay the £60 fine to ECP even tho I didn't know I was on their land???? Please help...
Page 2
    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 18th May 17, 8:25 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    Hi Fruitcake
    Hope this is what your after and is done correctly, Kind regards

    hxxp://feed1.tinypic.com/rss.php?u=c388rDZ6OdWSOgdhMVBYIQ%3D%3D
    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 18th May 17, 9:04 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    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
    • By Umkomaas 18th May 17, 9:18 PM
    • 14,968 Posts
    • 23,502 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Could I just ask, is it the original NTK you want or the latest received, thanks
    Originally posted by verynicelady
    Date of alleged infringement

    Date of receipt of first letter/communication from the PPC.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th May 17, 12:55 AM
    • 50,705 Posts
    • 64,109 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.
    Originally posted by verynicelady
    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.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 19-05-2017 at 12:59 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 20th May 17, 9:53 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    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
    • By verynicelady 20th May 17, 11:48 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    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
    • By Coupon-mad 21st May 17, 5:24 PM
    • 50,705 Posts
    • 64,109 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 21st May 17, 6:05 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st May 17, 7:03 PM
    • 14,968 Posts
    • 23,502 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    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?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 21st May 17, 7:39 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    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
    • By Umkomaas 21st May 17, 9:09 PM
    • 14,968 Posts
    • 23,502 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    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!
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 21-05-2017 at 9:24 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 22nd May 17, 3:56 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    Thank you for the push to sort myself out and continue with this appeal. I have now hopefully amended the letter for popla. I have been on their site but again am unsure of which box to place my appeal under. They are:

    My vehicle was stolen:


    I was not improperly parked


    The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct.



    I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.


    Other grounds for appeal

    Appeals based solely on the following grounds for appeal are less likely to be successful
    Extreme circumstances prevented me from parking correctly.

    Other





    Apoligies in advance for not understanding but would like your guidance yet again.


    Kind Regards
    Last edited by verynicelady; 22-05-2017 at 4:01 PM. Reason: extra information
    • Redx
    • By Redx 22nd May 17, 4:00 PM
    • 16,104 Posts
    • 20,165 Thanks
    Redx
    choose OTHER and attach your appeal as a pdf to the tiny "bin" icon

    dont use the other boxes at all

    so you are uploading as a pdf under OTHER

    glad to see you have taken the advice onboard and are continuing

    I hope you win

    ps:- copy and paste the same final POPLA appeal here, without any personal info or references , so others can learn from your draft
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd May 17, 5:09 PM
    • 40,419 Posts
    • 80,735 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    You need to include the long "Inadequate Signage" appeal point from the NEWBIES thread.

    Also, I don't believe the NTK meets the strict requirements of the POFA 2012 as it does not specify the period of parking, only the entry and exit times. Since it takes time to get from the entrance/exit, and the images were of a moving vehicle, the vehicle cannot have been parked when those images were generated.

    The scammers have not provided any evidence that
    1) the car was parked, and
    2) the period of parking if the car was indeed parked.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 22nd May 17, 7:56 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    Thanks for your advice, with my appeal would you use all the wordings within this link and leave out the threads? a lot of it I don't understand and the link talks a lot about sizing is this the link I'm using?

    Thanks again for your input and reading my NTK

    Kind Regards
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd May 17, 11:09 PM
    • 50,705 Posts
    • 64,109 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The template appeal point about signage talks about letter size, yes. You need that template point, plus the other ones that make sense for your own case, which you can work out because it isn't difficult. Show us your final draft before submitting it.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 23rd May 17, 7:33 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    Hello CM, Thanks so very much for your input yet again I really appreciate it. Here's a final draft and hope it's been edited correctly. Please let me know what you think?
    Kind Regards VNLady

    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 D’’ at......... 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) Amount demanded is a penalty
    3) Landowner Authority
    4) Photo evidence appears doctored
    5) Signage
    6) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)




    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)


    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.



    Amount demanded is a penalty

    2) 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.


    No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


    3) 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



    Photo evidence appears doctored

    4) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    I would challenge ECP to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).



    Signage

    5) 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:

    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.
    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:

    ''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.''

    ''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:



    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.



    Reasonable Grace Period
    6) 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'. 16 minutes, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore Euro car parks are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd May 17, 11:16 PM
    • 50,705 Posts
    • 64,109 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.
    I can't see Steve MacAllan quoted in #5?

    Delete that line then!


    I would also add a point like this:

    Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper 'issued/given' dates conflict and do not comply with Schedule 4 - no keeper liability.

    In May 2017, Euro Car Parks NTKs were found by POPLA to be non-compliant and this one is similarly compromised by the dates. POPLA Assessor Kirsty xxxxx, delivered a ''Decision Successful/Rationale'' about the same style of Euro Car Parks NTK:

    ''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.''


    In my case the dates are obviously different from those stated in that decision, as they will be in most cases POPLA reviews, but an operator must not mislead a motorist about the legal term 'date given' as far as a NTK is concerned and the ''date given'' cannot be materially different from the ''date issued'' by more than a couple of days in the post.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 24th May 17, 12:58 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    choose OTHER and attach your appeal as a pdf to the tiny "bin" icon
    Hi RedX

    Probably a daft question but need to ask, when I've got to the point of uploading my pdf it sits next to a green bin icon like you mentioned... As I haven't ever sent a pdf file before I was wondering if it's attached correctly before I send as wouldn't want to send to popla and it not be there. When I have attched files before I have alway's been able to open them to double check they are there. This pdf attachment isn't like that and you can't open it, is that how it works? Thanks VNL
    • verynicelady
    • By verynicelady 24th May 17, 1:04 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    verynicelady
    You're such a sweetheart helping me with my draft and have now amended it. I'm in the process of sending to popla but have had to ask RedX a question and am waiting for their reply before I continue. Will keep you in the loop with the outcome, fingers crossed for me xxx
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

2,477Posts Today

7,085Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin