euro car parks.

truebluesfan

been told today my daughter got a pcn from euro car parks at a retail park in Chesterfield, for overstaying the permitted time, the registered keeper is her partner, am I correct in thinking we follow the same guidance and submit a soft appeal and wait for it to be refused and then appeal to POPLA.

Stroma

Yes but wait for the Notice to Keeper to arrive first, between days 29-56 after ticketing, unless they are not the registered keeper?

truebluesfan

sorry I should have added the notice to keeper letter has arrived in her partners name, it has 2 photos of the number plates with arrival and departure times to show it exceeded the time limit

Coupon-mad

So use the not-so-soft template first appeal in the NEWBIES thread. No need to edit it.

truebluesfan

Thanks for that, ive posted the appeal today, will wait for the rejection letter.

goodybags

Hi I today received a parking ticket in the post as my car was parked and overstayed the free allowed time in Morrison's car park
a few years ago I had one from liddl
ignored that one never heard anymore of it
is it right I need to appeal on this one now, rather than just ignoring, pls advise thank you

ColliesCarer

Goodybags - please create your own thread rather than hijacking this one.

Yes you should appeal - read the sticky NEWBIES thread for info and advice on what to do

truebluesfan

just had the appeal rejected by euro car parks , I will appeal to POPLA and await the outcome.

Stroma

If you put the wording up before submission we can make sure it's a winning appeal

Coupon-mad

This isn't the same as the first appeal, so read 'How to win at POPLA' in the NEWBIES thread.

truebluesfan

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
6. ANPR usage
7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
8. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
9. Business rates

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £XX demanded by Euro Car Parks is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. In its reply to my initial letter requesting a breakdown of how supposed damages of £XX have arisen, Euro Car Parks has claimed the following as proof of its alleged ‘losses’ on which the charge is based:

- Wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions
- IT systems, software, licenses and peripherals
- DVLA fees and processing costs
- Costs in preparing and sending PCNs – stationery, postage and printing
- Legal, Accounting and other Professional costs
- Human Resources
- Premises Costs
- Vehicle and Telephone costs
- Loss of Pay and Display Ticket revenue generating from paying customers (where applicable)
- Loss of purchase revenue to Retail Outlets within the car park

Euro Car Parks has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £XX has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite my requesting them to do so. As Euro Car Parks cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.

Given that Euro Car Parks charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty.


2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage

As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Euro Car Parks must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

Euro Car Parks does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Euro Car Parks has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Euro Car Parks produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Euro Car Parks.


4. Unlawful penalty charge
Euro Car Parks cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Euro Car Parks could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.

5. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Euro Car Parks to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that Euro Car Parks produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Euro Car Parks to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. 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 the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to the contrary.

6. ANPR usage
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: '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.'

Euro Car Parks fails to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Euro Car Parks uses inadequate signage on arrival, as described in section 2 above, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system, essentially being a secret high-up spy camera, far from 'transparent', unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
Some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions and consent from the local authorities for their current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of ANPR systems. I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to provide evidence that it has the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on the site in question.

8. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper sent by Euro Car Parks to myself is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The Operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor, which requires words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... ". The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. Euro Car Parks has failed to do this and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.