PCN Wilkinsons - Carlton Street, Castleford

Robj241

Hi all,

Having read through the Newbies thread, can I ask that I am doing the right thing please.

Pulled in to Wilkinsons car park on Carlton Street, Castleford, 17.09.16 saw some notices and noted that the first fifteen minutes are free (Having contacted the store this only applies to 'Click and Collect').

Wife goes into store (Proof on credit card bill) and spends £18.40 I stay in car with young children, no ticket is purchased as I slowly drive round carpark trying to settle children.

Yesterday I received a PCN from 'Euro car parks' asking for £70.00

They have the entry time as xxxx and Exit xxxx a period just over 15 mins - we thought that we were within the 15 mins free - although that now transpires not to include actual shoppers.

Is the template below the correct on to send as my appeal to euro car parks.

Dear Euro car parks

Re PCN number: XXXX

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle.

If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.

However, in my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to such contact and to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your costs which are not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.

Yours faithfully,


Many thanks for any help

Edna_Basher

Hi Robj241

That's an IPC template letter that you've copied. Euro Car Parks are a member of the BPA's approved operator scheme.

The letter to use is the one in blue text for BPA members which can be found on the Newbies Sticky thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Although Wilko's might have told you that the 15 minutes' fee parking is limited only to "click and collect" customers, their signs are not entirely clear - the signs' main text states "Park up and pick up" with "Click and collect" being included in much smaller font. In any case, Euro Car Parks' ANPR cameras can't possibly differentiate between an "actual shopper" and a Click and Collect customer.

In preparation for the POPLA stage of the process, you can get some ideas from this recent thread over on Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108433

This concerns similar circumstances at the same car park. ECP's signs in this car park are rubbish.

Robj241

Many thanks Edna Basher for the very prompt reply.

I will copy the blue template and use that as my appeal.

The link supplied is greatly appreciated and gives me more confidence.

Cheers :beer:

Robj241

Hi,

I have received a rejection letter with a POPLA code, I have put together the following reply, but I am confused what to put in item 4 - highlighted in red.

Any advice help is greatly appreciated.

31st October 2016

Dear Sir,

POPLA Ref 241xxxxx - Vehicle Registration xxxxxxx
Euro Car Parks Ltd: Parking Charge Notice 8888xxxxxxx

I write to submit to POPLA the details of my dispute with Euro Car Parks Limited (“ECP”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued in respect of an alleged breach of terms and conditions of parking at Carlton Street Car Park, Castleford on 17/09/16.

I confirm that I am this vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I set out why I am not liable for this parking charge as follows:

1) ECP failed to allow a reasonable grace period and is in breach of the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice
2) ECP has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
3) The car park signage was inadequate.
4) ECP failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in compliance with the requirements of POFA.


1) ECP failed to allow a reasonable grace period and is in breach of the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice

ECP’s PCN records that my vehicle spent a total of 19 minutes in the car park, with the respective entry and exit times being recorded as 12.45 and 13.04.

ECP has stated that the Parking Charge was issued because no valid pay and display / permit was purchased and that this was in breach of the terms and conditions of the signage set out on the site.

I include with this submission a picture of the signage at the site (i.e. at the Click & Collect point at the Wilko store) which states that customers requiring longer than 15 minutes must purchase a valid pay and display ticket. Applying the principle of contra proferentem, car park users may reasonably infer that 15 minutes’ free parking is permitted.

Paragraph 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states that you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Therefore, having generated a PCN on a total stay of just 19 minutes (i.e. a grace period of only 4 minutes beyond the permitted 15 free minutes), ECP is in breach of Paragraph 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. This PCN should never have been generated.

Furthermore, this calculation does not even take into account the requirement for ECP to allow a reasonable grace period before the parking contract even begins. This is detailed in Paragraph 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice which states that you should allow the driver a reasonable “grace period” in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

Although Paragraph 13.2 does not specify what constitutes a “reasonable grace period” for a motorist to decide whether to stay or go, this grace period begins when the vehicle passes the ANPR camera at the car park entrance and must cover:

a) the time to drive into the car park and locate a parking space
b) the time to manoeuvre the vehicle into the parking space (once a space has been located)
c) the time for a driver to locate and walk to the nearest car park sign to the parking space
d) the time taken to read and understand all of the conditions contained on the car park sign; this includes having to read all of the “small print” on the sign.

The BPA Code of Practice considers it reasonable to apply a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes for a motorist to leave the car park at the end of the parking contract (i.e. for the motorist to get into their vehicle, manoeuvre out of the parking space and drive out of the car park). Given that more processes are involved in the period before the parking contract is formed (e.g. finding a parking space, locating a car park sign and then reading and understanding the terms on the sign), it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period before the establishment of the parking contact must be more than the minimum of the 10 minutes specified by the BPA Code of Practice as the grace period after the parking contract has ended.

Thus the overall grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice must be not less than 20 minutes. ECP should have calibrated its ANPR equipment to prevent PCNs being issued for any length of stay of not more than 35 minutes (i.e. 15 minutes’ free parking plus the minimum of 20 minutes’ grace period required to comply with the BPA Code of Practice). It is clear that ECP has failed to do so.

2) ECP has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park

I set out the relevant provisions of the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice as follows:

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). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

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

I do not believe that ECP has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ECP must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I therefore require ECP to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract is compliant with Paragraphs 7.1 – 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and permits ECP to make contracts with drivers in its own right, providing it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

3) The car park signage was inadequate

ECP should be aware that the BPA Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) 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.

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.

I have reason to believe that the signs at this car particular park were inadequate, including that;

a) They were insufficiently clear to impart details of all of the terms and conditions to the driver.
b) They did not clearly explain to motorists that parking time would be measured against the times recorded by the ANPR cameras at the car park’s entrance and exit and not as a measure of the time that the vehicle was actually parked.
c) Contrary to the requirement of Paragraph 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice, there was not one sign that could be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle.
d) They did not properly warn motorists of the purpose of the operation of the ANPR cameras; Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice 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 Code of Practice 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. I contend that ECP’s signs do not comply with these requirements.
e) They did not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that ECP would reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver. In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for the driver to conclude that ECP was one of the many private parking companies that choose not to utilise the provisions of POFA thereby limiting the scope of their claim only to the driver. It is unreasonable that ECP should seek to apply this additional condition retrospectively

I require from ECP contemporaneous photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.

4) ECP failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in compliance with the requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.

[ECP have recently improved the standard of their Notices to Keeper; whilst some of the more obvious deficiencies have been addressed, there are still reasons why the notices do not comply. You’ll need to use Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA as a checklist]



Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that POPLA confirms that ECP has no valid claim against me and that its PCN should be cancelled and credited in full.


Yours faithfully,



[A Keeper]

Fruitcake

Did you get a NTK? If so, compare it with the relevant parts of the POFA 2012 and pick out the buts that fail to make the keeper liable like it tells you to do in the bit you have already quoted in red.

If you didn't get a NTK by day 56 then they have failed POFA completely.

Please give the date of the alleged event, and the date if any of the day you received the NTK.

Robj241

Thanks for the quick response.

I have not received a NTK.

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) 17/09/2016

REJECTION OF APPEAL AND POPLA CODE 27/10/2016

I am now aware that I submitted my appeal to early, so shall I wait until 12/11/16 before submitting my appeal to POPLA?

Robj241

Quick update!!!

Received this email on Friady :j

Dear XXX

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 241xxxxxx.

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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Many thanks to Edna Basher for supporting me and giving me confidence to see this through :beer:

Umkomaas

Nice one, well done. Edna B is a great contributor to the forum.