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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 16th Nov 17, 6:39 PM
    • 66Posts
    • 5Thanks
    azz007
    Minster baywatch pcn
    • #1
    • 16th Nov 17, 6:39 PM
    Minster baywatch pcn 16th Nov 17 at 6:39 PM
    2 postal PCN from Minster Baywatch as being parked on a Mecca Bingo Car park on two occasions 24th Oct and 02 Nov 2017.

    these are monitored now with ANPR cameras .

    Now as keeper have 2 PCN and wrote a Without Prejudice Letter to hoefuly work to bring the matter to a close if they accecpt. as keeper will sent a letter via post with a cheque.


    This is what i have so far, i think maybe i should remove point 2, as ive read this no longer works??
    any thoughts , ammendants or things to add will be appreciated. see below

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    17/11/2017
    Without Prejudice

    Dear Sirs,

    I write further to your recent correspondences as the Keeper relating to the Parking Charges issued by yourselves. (See attached).
    Parking Charge Number 1: 12345
    Parking Charge Number 2: 12345

    I am challenging your parking charge dated 24/10/2017 & 02/11/2017) on the following grounds:
    1.

    2. The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
    Please provide a breakdown of how your demanded charge is calculated so that I can consider further whether it amounts to a penalty as the charge that you are levying is punitive and therefore void against me. The charge of £100 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges.
    3. You were using an ANPR camera system but this has evidently not been advertised on the signage with prominence and not seen by the driver.
    4. Having examined your PCN I believe it is non-compliant demand for payment. Your notice in the text refers to being a PCN. This term is attributed to a penalty charge notice issued by a local authority. It is therefore easily confused with a statutory penalty charge notice. The BPA is clear in its rules that such abbreviations and terms are not permissible.

    As a gesture of goodwill and to bring the matter to a swift and amicable conclusion, I am offering you on a without prejudice basis only, the sum of £10.00 for both alleged breaches in full and final settlement of all claims you have against the Keeper. This should enable you to cover the costs of obtaining the vehicle details and your alleged loss of income you may have suffered arising from the alleged contract. I should point out that if you bank or negotiate this cheque this will be taken as your acceptance of the offer which cannot be retracted under any circumstance.

    If you choose to reject my offer to settle this matter and wish to pursue this matter through the courts then I shall bring to the Court’s attention this letter.

    Yours Faithfully,

    PRINT NAME

    any feedback appreciated, i dont really want to ignore this one as ive already ignored another one i got from ECP in August and at the 2nd DRP+ LETTER stage.
    Last edited by azz007; 17-11-2017 at 11:02 AM.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Nov 17, 9:04 PM
    • 51,635 Posts
    • 65,294 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to show US your draft POPLA appeal, not the other way round.

    You will have seen the templates for POPLA when you read the NEWBIES thread post #3.
    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.

    • azz007
    • By azz007 24th Nov 17, 11:47 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    It's not terribly worded, but you still appeal as keeper, because the POFA schedule 4 isn't just about the NTK wording; for instance the Act also requires 'adequate notice' of the parking charge. And MB signs are often sparse (can you get photos showing NO signs visible, that would be good prep for POPLA).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Photos are shared on dropbox. for any info i can put on the APPEAL


    Also if the car 'wasn't authorised', it's worth showing us the signs as they may well be worded as prohibiting parking/''no contract offered'' - no licence therefore no breach of any agreed contractual 'licence' to park without a permit.

    And the £100 charge might be buried in small print, or obscured by trees, etc.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    i need some wordigns around this regarding the signs ive shared. is there a breach here?
    • azz007
    • By azz007 24th Nov 17, 3:33 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    MY POPLA APPEAL See below. any comments on what i should keep, remove, add?
    Should i keep point 2?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POPLA Ref: ####

    As registered keeper of vehicle reg: XXX XXXX I am not liable for this charge.


    Here is my POPLA appeal for consideration.



    1. Signage
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. (Should I keep this)??
    3. Landowner Authority
    4. ANPR accuracy and Compliance


    1 – Signage

    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:

    http://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:

    http://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:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    http://www.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:

    http://www.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:

    http://www.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.

    2- The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.


    Got it from this forum? Should I keep or delete as the NTK seems reasonable worded
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5698328

    NTK - [IMG]hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/104enfr.jpg[/IMG]
    It's not terribly worded, but you still appeal as keeper, because the POFA schedule 4 isn't just about the NTK wording; for instance the Act also requires 'adequate notice' of the parking charge. And MB signs are often sparse (can you get photos showing NO signs visible, that would be good prep for POPLA).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    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, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. 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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. 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 –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. 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. ‘No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.''


    3 - Landowner Authority


    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


    4 - ANPR accuracy and Compliance


    I require Minster Baywatch Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that Minster Baywatch Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Minster Baywatch Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the Minster Baywatch system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

    In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
    ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
    21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
    21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    • be registered with the Information Commissioner
    • keep to the Data Protection Act
    • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    • follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

    At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.


    Let me know your thoughts?
    • azz007
    • By azz007 26th Nov 17, 8:00 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    been a couple of days, no replies, anybody to give feedback on the POPLA appeal??
    • azz007
    • By azz007 27th Nov 17, 9:53 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    is there no help on these forums anymore? Have put my POPLA together. Ii understand there are alot of posts, but would appreciated some feedback after being told to constantly look at the NEWBIES thread,

    it seems like people are more quick to criticise if nobody follows the NEWBIES and usually told look at the NEWBIES etc etc.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 27th Nov 17, 9:53 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    You need to show US your draft POPLA appeal, not the other way round.

    You will have seen the templates for POPLA when you read the NEWBIES thread post #3.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    Any feebback with my POPLA ???
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Nov 17, 10:14 PM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    on a skim read it seems ok

    if the driver has not been identified , leave 2) IN

    I would add another paragraph about it being NOT THE SAME AS BEAVIS, because he overstayed on a private free car park with a 2 hour max stay and no option to obtain more time

    so if your car park or whatever was not the same as beavis, say so with a not the same as beavis paragraph, that way it acts as a block on them just shouting BEAVIS at the assessor (ie:- the supreme court ruling from 2 years ago)

    lastly, are there any other points you can add ?

    like

    BPA CoP failures or errors
    POFA2012 failures or errors
    Not the same as beavis (mentioned above)
    grace periods ? (it seems not reading page 1)
    FORBIDDING SIGNAGE (was there an offer of a contract to park ? or not ?
    if they dont offer a contract to park then its trespassing , which is nothing to do with MB or Popla

    if not , then maybe add what I said and then when complete select OTHER on the popla website and upload it as a pdf doc by attaching it to the appeal
    Last edited by Redx; 27-11-2017 at 10:20 PM.
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 27th Nov 17, 10:58 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    on a skim read it seems ok

    if the driver has not been identified , leave 2) IN
    Originally posted by Redx
    Nope, the driver hasnt been identified, appealed as keeper using BLUE template in NEWBIES. so can keep this in,

    I would add another paragraph about it being NOT THE SAME AS BEAVIS, because he overstayed on a private free car park with a 2 hour max stay and no option to obtain more time

    so if your car park or whatever was not the same as beavis, say so with a not the same as beavis paragraph, that way it acts as a block on them just shouting BEAVIS at the assessor (ie:- the supreme court ruling from 2 years ago)
    Originally posted by Redx
    This was an ANPR camera operated car park and no pay and display. only users on the authorised list as its a MECCA Bingo car park.



    lastly, are there any other points you can add ?

    like

    BPA CoP failures or errors
    POFA2012 failures or errors
    Not the same as beavis (mentioned above)
    grace periods ? (it seems not reading page 1)
    FORBIDDING SIGNAGE (was there an offer of a contract to park ? or not ?
    if they dont offer a contract to park then its trespassing , which is nothing to do with MB or Popla
    Originally posted by Redx
    Not sure what you mean BPA failures, any pointers?
    POFA2012 - my POFA wording on their letter [IMG]hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/104enfr.jpg[/IMG] , any tips?
    not same as beavis - see my point above
    grace periods - correct, does not apply here
    FORBIDDEN SINGANE - see my images of car park SIGN, it say CONTRACT? - hxxps://www.dropbox.com/sh/0vgcayxy572un3q/AAAhq1nOh5dYpp7tgT0OJ5pqa?dl=0


    I have found this regarding BPA COP on this POPLA APPEAL
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5619848#topofpage

    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 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.



    Any further advice would be great
    Last edited by azz007; 27-11-2017 at 11:26 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Nov 17, 11:30 PM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    read the BPA CoP and if you identify any failures of that CoP by MB then use them

    I wont be checking POFA or signage issues, not my job and I am no expert , plus I refuse to access other peoples files on places like dropbox, I have no idea if those files are safe or not

    my point to you is that you should be doing the checking and adding any possible failures or legal points into your popla appeal

    YOU should be checking their POFA2012 wording against POFA2012 itself

    YOU should be checking the BPA CoP

    you have mentioned the BEAVIS case in the signage section, but have not addressed any other possible points that may arise out of the BEAVIS case , like the penalty rule being engaged

    we wont do your job for you, but we may point you at possibilities that may have been omitted or overlooked

    this is your appeal, your money is on the line

    I aim to point people at what they should be doing or researching, I wont do the work for them and neither will anyone else on here, so just making myself clear on that issue

    we are volunteers that try to help for free, giving up far too much free time already , personally I am thinking of taking a sabbatical for a few months because those that we help never stick around to help others who come after them but are quick to criticise the free help they do (or dont) get !!

    its like Canute trying to hold back the North Sea

    ps:- CM wont be replying because unfortunately she has been PPR`d
    Last edited by Redx; 28-11-2017 at 12:03 AM.
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Nov 17, 11:34 PM
    • 4,717 Posts
    • 3,041 Thanks
    KeithP
    is there no help on these forums anymore? Have put my POPLA together. Ii understand there are alot of posts, but would appreciated some feedback after being told to constantly look at the NEWBIES thread,

    it seems like people are more quick to criticise if nobody follows the NEWBIES and usually told look at the NEWBIES etc etc.
    Originally posted by azz007
    This post has won you no favours.
    .
    • azz007
    • By azz007 28th Nov 17, 8:57 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    read the BPA CoP and if you identify any failures of that CoP by MB then use them

    I wont be checking POFA or signage issues, not my job and I am no expert , plus I refuse to access other peoples files on places like dropbox, I have no idea if those files are safe or not

    my point to you is that you should be doing the checking and adding any possible failures or legal points into your popla appeal

    YOU should be checking their POFA2012 wording against POFA2012 itself

    YOU should be checking the BPA CoP

    you have mentioned the BEAVIS case in the signage section, but have not addressed any other possible points that may arise out of the BEAVIS case , like the penalty rule being engaged

    we wont do your job for you, but we may point you at possibilities that may have been omitted or overlooked

    this is your appeal, your money is on the line

    I aim to point people at what they should be doing or researching, I wont do the work for them and neither will anyone else on here, so just making myself clear on that issue

    we are volunteers that try to help for free, giving up far too much free time already , personally I am thinking of taking a sabbatical for a few months because those that we help never stick around to help others who come after them but are quick to criticise the free help they do (or dont) get !!

    its like Canute trying to hold back the North Sea

    ps:- CM wont be replying because unfortunately she has been PPR`d
    Originally posted by Redx

    I understand. Do you advise i add photos attached onto my POPLA appeal separately, or within the PDF itself? is it good to give them photos with the appeal??

    Those are from my Dropbox shared server i use for work too. Totally safe but i suppose you can only take my word on it. Just wanted to the , it does say
    ' CONTRACT TO ENTER AND PARK' - By Entering you agree to abide with the following conditions.

    i shall look at other points you have made too. il be looking to stick around, i have invested alot of time on this and have been doing so for a friend too.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 28th Nov 17, 9:27 AM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    excellent , stick with it as you are doing well so far

    embed the photos etc into the pdf

    much better to have the details in front of an assessors nose and not have links they may not be allowed to click on or fail their firewalls etc

    keep it as simple as possible for an assessor to try and get them in the right mood to accept your appeal

    if the driver had no offer or contract to park, then its forbidding signage to everyone else and so an issue for the landowner to issue a trespass notice , nothing to do with a parking company who didnt offer an actual parking contract to this driver
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 28th Nov 17, 9:33 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    excellent , stick with it as you are doing well so far

    embed the photos etc into the pdf

    much better to have the details in front of an assessors nose and not have links they may not be allowed to click on or fail their firewalls etc

    keep it as simple as possible for an assessor to try and get them in the right mood to accept your appeal

    if the driver had no offer or contract to park, then its forbidding signage to everyone else and so an issue for the landowner to issue a trespass notice , nothing to do with a parking company who didnt offer an actual parking contract to this driver
    Originally posted by Redx

    cool understood will embedd the photos in.

    Lastly my final point i will add is regarding the BEAVIS penalty rule you mentioned. shoould i add this within the signage section, or as a separate point? i.e 6.

    6- 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.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 28th Nov 17, 9:37 AM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    I believe it is a separate point because you are stating that the BEAVIS result is showing that this pcn is a penalty and not a contract to park

    beavis had a contract to park for 2 hours only

    the driver in your case had NO contract to park, period , so its a penalty AFAIK

    bear in mind I have no legal training, but read a lot on here
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 28th Nov 17, 9:39 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    I believe it is a separate point because you are stating that the BEAVIS result is showing that this pcn is a penalty and not a contract to park

    beavis had a contract to park for 2 hours only

    the driver in your case had NO contract to park, period , so its a penalty AFAIK

    bear in mind I have no legal training, but read a lot on here
    Originally posted by Redx

    great, appreciate it. ready to created a PDF now and then submit the appeal.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 28th Nov 17, 9:48 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    I believe it is a separate point because you are stating that the BEAVIS result is showing that this pcn is a penalty and not a contract to park

    beavis had a contract to park for 2 hours only

    the driver in your case had NO contract to park, period , so its a penalty AFAIK

    bear in mind I have no legal training, but read a lot on here
    Originally posted by Redx

    sorry 1 last thing, should i attach a photo of the Signage up close for the assessor to read the sign properly as what it says etc. is this advisable to do this?
    Last edited by azz007; 29-11-2017 at 9:04 AM.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 28th Nov 17, 2:45 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    This post has won you no favours.
    Originally posted by KeithP

    i dint mean to sound offensive , i appreciate all the help and guidance.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Nov 17, 10:48 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    POPLA appeal has been submitted. how long do they usually take to review an appeal anybody know?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Nov 17, 10:58 AM
    • 15,841 Posts
    • 24,567 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    POPLA appeal has been submitted. how long do they usually take to review an appeal anybody know?
    Originally posted by azz007
    Can be around 4-6 weeks.

    You will receive the PPCs evidence pack (they have 21 days to produce it), you then have 7 days to respond to that, so you can easily see how it takes 4-6 weeks.

    Obviously if the PPC responds quickly, and you do, it might take a bit less.

    HTH
    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Nov 17, 11:38 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    azz007
    Can be around 4-6 weeks.

    You will receive the PPCs evidence pack (they have 21 days to produce it), you then have 7 days to respond to that, so you can easily see how it takes 4-6 weeks.

    Obviously if the PPC responds quickly, and you do, it might take a bit less.

    HTH
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I thought it was first submitting the appeal , then POPLA and the PPC do the stuff behind the scene/review and then i get the decision/response from POPLA about if it was successful or unsuccessful

    if unsuccessful - i get it with their evidence pack.etc and take it from there,
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

368Posts Today

1,850Users online

Martin's Twitter