Mistook the hours stated on Euro Car Park sign

BlueShoo

So after two whole long days I have my final draft - I hope it is ok, and if so that it helps others in the same situation and who struggle with letters as much as I do. Thank you so much, (esp. Coupon-mad) for the suggestions, corrections and pointers to other appeal letters - and to those who wrote those appeal letters!

1. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
Euro Car Parks claim: "The car park is operated by....(ANPR) - cameras capture an image....and calculate their length of stay. Your vehicle was parked longer than 2 hours, therefore the notice was issued correctly and the charge remains payable."The PCN enclosed two cropped photographs, originating from ANPR, of only the vehicles number plate; there is no 'in-photo' details of date, location or landscape to reveal exactly the scene in which the vehicles number plate was photographed. The times and dates of the alleged offence are written within the letter of the PCN, they are not part of the photographs.
I do not accept this as evidence of unauthorized parking; the PCN was non-compliant in the images used as stipulated in the BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. 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."
As these are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks to produce evidence of the original 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. Without this, the right for Euro Car Parks to pursue the alleged charge from the keeper is diminished .

Also, contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA, the PCN does not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related, the dates and times of allegedly entering and exiting the car park does not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. I assume that a local camera takes an image but a remote server calculates the time; as this involves a transfer of data between equipment and software there is no proof, without regular and flawless checks, that the time added is actually the exact time of the image, or indeed that such data synchronised at all should a vehicle enter a photographed premises more than once or at separate entrances. Upon investigation of the car park in question, there are two separate entrances that lead to different roads of the city centre; the use of multiple synchronised equipments gives further chance of failure in accuracy.
The probability of the ANPR system being 100% effective can be argued, supported by the views of the BPA on their website (britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR-work), where the BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use: Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked...'. Additionally 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 (not shown within the photographic evidence), it is vital that Euro Car Parks produces evidence in response to these points.

2. Lack of legible signage.
Euro Car Parks claim: "Be advised that there are a number of signs around the car park indicating the restrictions of the site and it is the responsibility of the driver to read them when parking."
Upon investigating the site, the signage is exceptionally inadequate / inappropriate, and appears quite deliberate so as to have the claim afterwards that signage is provided. Euro car parks have enclosed a scanned photograph in the ECP appeal rejection Ref: ####..., of a parking restriction sign in size A5 that is very obscure and impossible to read its terms, therefore it is unacceptable as evidence of clear signage - more so it provides evidence of inadequate signage at the alleged site. Furthermore there is no evidence that any of those signs were positioned between the alleged contravening parked car and the road entrances or the pedestrian entrances.
Upon investigating the car park in question, it is within a complex of a supermarket with a cafe and a petrol station, adjacent to a restaurant and 5 other major stores - signs should be very clear and numerous for customers and located where there is ample ability to stop and read from a vehicle, but this is not the case. Of the two aforementioned entrances for vehicles, one is on a roundabout leading from a traffic light junction, and the other direct from a traffic light junction. One has to park their vehicle within the car park, walk to search for a sign, and be within a couple of feet to be able to read the terms of parking as the lettering is very small. This effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

3. No Landowner Authority.
Euro Car Parks claim: "....Euro car parks has written authority to operate and issue parking charge notices on all of our locations from the landowner".
I question Euro Car Parks authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park. The BPA Code of Practice paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording; Euro car parks have not provided strict proof of those contract terms with the actual landowner (a lessee or agent has no more title than the operator), and have not shown any legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor by standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.
Section 7.3 of the CoP states: “The written authorization 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.''
I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

4. Keeper Liability not established.
Euro Car Parks claim: "...any person who makes contract his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or...disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract," "Euro car parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle,...it is the registered keeper's responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. ...under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the Act'), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid."
"Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid."
Such a contract could have been made as claimed here by Euro car parks. The appeals process has been contradictory: the PCN threatens that a failure to respond with an appeal or payment will incur civil action being taken against the keeper of the vehicle within 28 days; yet the rejection of my appeal threatens that a keepers response to the PCN "renders himself personally liable" for the charge and that action will be taken anyway, whether there is a named driver or otherwise. This is clearly unfair practice.
If Euro Car Parks should try to suggest that there is any method whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012 (transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade). The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:
“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".

5. Non-compliance with POFA 2012.
Euro Car Parks claim: "...it is the registered keepers responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given."
Firstly, the PCN was received 7 days after the letters date; giving me in total 7 days notice - not the 14 days stated in the PCN - in which to respond. The euro car parks website also makes it very difficult to make an appeal, by obscuring the location of the appeals section, and by having such a restricted text box in which to make an appeal that one cannot even read half of a sentence being constructed. This is clearly deliberate tactics aimed to delay and disrupt the ability to appeal a PCN served by Euro Car Parks.
Also, no keeper liability is established under Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, Paragraph 8, whereby:
(4)The notice must be given by—
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

The ECP appeal rejection Ref: ####... was issued 36 days after the PCN, and it demand the keeper to respond within 28 days starting from the date of the PCN. This is both incorrect under the POFA 2012 Paragraph 8 (5) and impossible due to being posted after the demanded deadline.

I will send it tomorrow afternoon... :T
All the best!

Coupon-mad

Also, no keeper liability is established under Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, Paragraph 8, whereby:
(4)The notice must be given by—
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

You are still quoting para 8 which is wrong, and you instead need the entire blow-by-blow demolition job of Euro's PCN when compared to Schedule 4 paragraph 9. That's why the linked appeal was so long, with 'no keeper liability' as point #1. Your PCN will be the same but you need to tell POPLA what's wrong with it, like the other poster did (you can copy it) yes it's long but you need to focus POPLA's attention on why the NTK isn't compliant.

This bit makes no sense to me:

The ECP appeal rejection Ref: ####... was issued 36 days after the PCN, and it demand the keeper to respond within 28 days starting from the date of the PCN. This is both incorrect under the POFA 2012 Paragraph 8 (5) and impossible due to being posted after the demanded deadline.

There is no deadline on the rejection letter compared to the PCN - and again, para 8 is not relevant if it wasn't a windscreen PCN.

BlueShoo

Thanks Coupon-mad,
Im really struggling to understand all these legal paragraphs, and to see how they are relevant to the PCN and rejection being wrong.
The 28 days bit was because they are saying to reply within 28 days but they have given the letter after 28 days so its impossible to.

Anyway, Im going to have to have a break from this, be back later in the week.

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

You can just copy what the other poster put under their 'no keeper liability' section, in its entirety.

You are looking at an irrelevant 28 days about appeal deadlines, nothing to do with the POFA.

BlueShoo

OK, so I have removed the deadlines paragraph altogether (now that my mind block has gone!) and copied & pasted the whole 'no keeper liability' in.
Sending it off now....

Thankyou so much for all your help with this, very much appreciated - in the end it is not the money, but the principal that companies threaten such charges in such a scaremongering fashion without following the laws themselves.

BlueShoo

I just recieved an email through POPLA:

"Euro Car Parks have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge"

Hooray and thankyou all for all your help!!!