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
    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 27th Aug 17, 8:09 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 0Thanks
    alfaRRR
    ECP PCN Sainsbury's - Leased car
    • #1
    • 27th Aug 17, 8:09 PM
    ECP PCN Sainsbury's - Leased car 27th Aug 17 at 8:09 PM
    Hello all,
    I’ve received another PCN, the same one I recently received from Euro Car Parks / Sainsbury’s, but the only difference is that this car is leased from ‘Lex Autolease’, who are the registered keepers. We always thought that this car park allowed 2hours – on both occasions the 90 permissible minutes were overstayed by just under 30mins.

    Date of event: 07/08/2017
    Date issued: 15/08/2017
    Date: 15/08/2017
    Letter from Lex Autolease dated: 23/08/2017

    Lex Autolease sent me a letter along with the PCN attached. In the letter, they basically say either appeal or pay – it does not seem they have passed my details on as the keeper/hirer of the vehicle. They do suggest that if I would like to dispute then I should write to the parking company with my contact details explaining the reasons for dispute. They simply state that if they receive any further correspondence from ECP they will pay the fine and charge it back to me with an admin fee.
    I have drafted (copied) the below based on the newbies post and other threads/templates… Please let me know if the below letter will work, it does not seem very substantial, will it suffice? I plan to submit appeal directly to ECP tomorrow…

    Any precautions to take with regards to the lease company to ensure they do not pay? i.e. should I send them an email asking them to send my details to ECP and that they should not pay? I read somewhere that this leasing company in particular doesn’t send this information due to ‘privacy’ reasons.
    Any help will be much appreciated.

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as lessee of the car and subsequently request all future correspondence be sent directly to myself at the address listed below:

    My street
    My Town
    My Postcode

    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.

    Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

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

    Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

    Yours faithfully,
    My name
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Aug 17, 8:59 PM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 27th Aug 17, 8:59 PM
    • #2
    • 27th Aug 17, 8:59 PM
    Yep - you could include a scan of the LEX letter to show that this was indeed passed to you.

    Don't tip ECP off to send you a Notice to hirer, because it's likely they will forget!
    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.

    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 28th Aug 17, 9:32 AM
    • 584 Posts
    • 1,518 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #3
    • 28th Aug 17, 9:32 AM
    • #3
    • 28th Aug 17, 9:32 AM
    I suggest that you add a sentence confirming that you are the vehicle's hirer and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), adding that now it is proven that in this instance, the registered keeper is not the "keeper" (as defined under POFA), ECP has no reason to contact Lex Autolease again regarding this PCN.

    Send Lex a copy of your letter to ECP and ask them to contact you immediately should they receive any further correspondence from ECP.
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 28-08-2017 at 9:35 AM.
    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 28th Aug 17, 1:39 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    alfaRRR
    • #4
    • 28th Aug 17, 1:39 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Aug 17, 1:39 PM
    Ok thanks! Any need to wait for day 21 or should I appeal now as the NTK / NTH clock restarts anyway?!?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Aug 17, 3:12 PM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 28th Aug 17, 3:12 PM
    • #5
    • 28th Aug 17, 3:12 PM
    Appeal now - but the clock has not restarted, because you have NOT been furnished with a NTH.
    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.

    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 7th Oct 17, 7:23 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    alfaRRR
    • #6
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:23 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:23 PM
    Euro car parks have rejected my appeal 34 days after I submitted the appeal and have provided me with a POPLA code.

    I am in the process of drafting an appeal for POPLA but have noticed the recommendations/advice on this site have changed. Previously long winded responses were advised, but now the appeal template to POPLA seems to be much shorter i.e. does not include details – each point is succinct.
    Could you guys kindly clarify which format is recommended?

    Thanks
    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 7th Oct 17, 7:25 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    alfaRRR
    • #7
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:25 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:25 PM
    the site is not allowing me to upload images via link as a fairly new user....how can I share the rejection letter?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Oct 17, 7:33 PM
    • 3,954 Posts
    • 2,206 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:33 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:33 PM
    the site is not allowing me to upload images via link as a fairly new user....how can I share the rejection letter?
    Originally posted by alfaRRR
    Upload the image to a web hosting site like maybe tinypic or dropbox, then post the url here.
    You won't be allowed to post a live link but just change 'http' to 'hxxp' and someone will fix it for you.

    But do we need to see that rejection letter?
    Does it say anything significant?
    Last edited by KeithP; 07-10-2017 at 7:38 PM.
    .
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Oct 17, 7:36 PM
    • 3,954 Posts
    • 2,206 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:36 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Oct 17, 7:36 PM
    I am in the process of drafting an appeal for POPLA but have noticed the recommendations/advice on this site have changed. Previously long winded responses were advised, but now the appeal template to POPLA seems to be much shorter i.e. does not include details – each point is succinct.
    Originally posted by alfaRRR
    I don't think that guidance has changed recently.

    Different people may however have different views.

    I won't bother answering the same question on your other thread.
    .
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Oct 17, 7:39 PM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,004 Thanks
    Quentin

    I won't bother answering the same question on your other thread.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Why post 2 identical questions on 2 separate threads?


    Time wasting which could be used to help others!
    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 7th Oct 17, 8:53 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    alfaRRR
    Here's the rejection letter - can someone help fix please (both links are the same letter, but used different links in case one doesn't work).

    [IMG]hxxp://tinypic.com/r/wrbdxk/9[/IMG]
    [IMG]hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/wrbdxk.jpg[/IMG]
    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 7th Oct 17, 8:56 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    alfaRRR
    Woops sorry - The purpose of the two posts was because I was trying to document the length of time it took ECP to respond to each separately. I guess the 'question' itself was not needed in both! Sorry again.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Oct 17, 9:01 PM
    • 3,954 Posts
    • 2,206 Thanks
    KeithP
    http://oi67.tinypic.com/wrbdxk.jpg

    Nothing remarkable in that letter.

    Time to prepare your POPLA appeal.
    .
    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 7th Oct 17, 10:51 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    alfaRRR
    I have prepared the following draft appeal - (Note it is exactly the same as my other post/appeal but without the first point. Please let me know if this is enough for this PCN... Thanks

    ------x-------


    As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks (ECP) received on 15 August 2017 as I believe it was unlawfully issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:


    1. The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    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. 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)
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    5. BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.
    6. Amount demanded is a penalty
    7. 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
    8. Photo Evidence Open to Being Doctored




    1. The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
    In this case, the £70 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner where the car only overstayed by under 30mins.


    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:

    www-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. 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)

    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: “… as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.”



    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




    5. 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 which 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.



    6. 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 nor ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.


    7. 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':

    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.


    8. Photo Evidence Open to Being Doctored

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

    Yours faithfully,
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Oct 17, 11:43 PM
    • 3,954 Posts
    • 2,206 Thanks
    KeithP
    I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks (ECP) received on 15 August 2017...
    received should be issued.
    .
    • alfaRRR
    • By alfaRRR 8th Oct 17, 12:06 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    alfaRRR
    I put 'received' because that is when I received it from the leasing company - but I'll change to 'issued' and change the date accordingly.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Oct 17, 12:44 PM
    • 3,954 Posts
    • 2,206 Thanks
    KeithP
    I put 'received' because that is when I received it from the leasing company - but I'll change to 'issued' and change the date accordingly.
    Originally posted by alfaRRR
    Ah, OK. In which case the text could be:
    I wish to appeal the parking charge notice I received from Euro Car Parks (ECP) on 15 August 2017...
    ECP didn't receive it.
    .
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

168Posts Today

1,470Users 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