Euro car parks, not parked in marked bay?

Nemm

Hi, I received a parking charge notice regarding a courtesy car my husband parked in Manchester, however I got the letter as it was in my name. The letter came over a month later and so I rejected it on the basis that no notice had been given on the day or within 14 days. They did not state the registration however I then had to confirm it in order to appeal and saying I have now confirmed I was the driver that day. I have now received a response stating they are rejecting the appeal and can appeal to POPLA, they have said the car was not parked in the marked bay and provided photographic evidence which does show the car over the white line but also you can see the car next to it is also over pushing us over too, also we were on the end. Just not sure how to proceed, do I appeal with POPLA stating that it wasn't due to the other car parking over so we had to in order to get in and out of the car, any successful examples? The fine I see £100 which I think is excessive. I would be grateful for any advice.

Coupon-mad

To find example POPLA appeal points start by looking at the recent posts in 'POPLA Decisions' up the top of this board. Two weeks ago I posted some template appeal points there. You can use some, verbatim.

If you are SURE you said it was you driving, that's a huge shame - are you sure?

Replying to a PCN and being the hirer/lessee of a courtesy car is not necessarily saying 'I was the driver'...unless you ticked that box online when appealing, or said as much? Said stuff like 'I parked'?

Nemm

No, I'm sure I never stated I was driving nor said I parked, as the first letter never stated why we got the fine and actually assumed it was to do for payment. They never stated the registration number and we were unsure as we have had a few different courtesy cars but had to state a registration number to proceed with the online appeal form and it's like there taking that as confirmation of me as the driver!

Ok thank you will look at the POPLA posts.

Coupon-mad

Oh good, I certainly take that as 'driver not admitted' and you can work on a POPLA appeal starting with 'no hirer liability', then 'the individual driver liable has not been evidenced..' then unclear signage, landowner authority and a 'Beavis case differs - this is a penalty' paragraph.

All of which are shown as templates in the top 'POPLA Decisions' thread near the end.

Nemm

Ok, I have had a look at the threads but all a bit confused what to use, could you send me the thread link regarding PP POPLA version for the exact issue re the '29 days/keeper details' as you mentioned?

Thank you for all your help and advice, I do appreciate it.

Coupon-mad

Nope, not me, I never spoon feed links. It never helps newbies know how to use the forum to help them best.

I do help people learn how to search though. You only need to find ONE recent one and it's easy.

Put 'Euro POPLA' into the search box just above the sticky threads on the right (level with 'new thread' but on the right of page one of this board, not this page!). Choose 'this board' and advanced search then - at the bottom seek out 'show POSTS' instead of show threads.

Edna_Basher

Hi C-M. Rather than relating to Premier, Nemm’s case is with the equally charming Euro Car Parks.

Having received some “expert” advice from Gladstones Solicitors, ECP have recently made improvements to the wording of their Notice to Keeper. Too bad this advice didn’t extend as far as their Notice to Hirer - ECP just use the wording from their new Notice to (Registered) Keeper and hope for the best.

Hi Nemm – does ECP's notice include the wording "You are notified under the Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full...." and “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given....."? If so, they've sent you a version of their Notice to Keeper.

Here’s some suggested ECP Notice to Hirer wording to set you on your way with your POPLA appeal.


Dear Sir

POPLA Ref [241xxxxxxx] - Vehicle Registration [AA11AAA]
Euro Car Parks Ltd: Parking Charge Notice [8888xxxxxxx]

I write to lodge my dispute with Euro Car Parks Limited (“ECP”) regarding the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me on [Date of PCN] in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at [Location of Incident] on [Date of Incident].

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

1) ECP failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of POFA.
2) Insert other points as appropriate.........


1) ECP failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements; ECP failed to do so.

The PCN seeks to give notice to the recipient under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of Schedule 4 of POFA; however, this paragraph is relevant to PCNs served as Notices to (Registered) Keeper not Notices to Hirer. Even if this PCN had been issued as a Notice to (Registered) Keeper, it was served beyond the relevant period specified under Paragraph 9 (5) of Schedule 4 POFA (i.e. the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended). This PCN was not issued until [x] days after the day on which the specified period of parking ended.

Of course, ECP should have issued a Notice to Hirer rather than a Notice to (Registered) Keeper. The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA; the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the Hirer liable for the charge are set out in Paragraph 14. Paragraph 14 (1) of Schedule 4 of POFA specifies that if (a) the creditor is by virtue of Paragraph 13 (2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and (b) the conditions mentioned in Paragraph 14(2) below are met, the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

• Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13 (2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). ECP did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.

• Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the Hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. ECP’s PCN makes no reference to the Notice to Keeper, let alone referring the Hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that ECP did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, ECP failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2).

• Furthermore, ECP failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 14 (5) including:

• Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14 (5) (a) ECP’s PCN did not inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the Notice to Keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;

• Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(b) ECP’s PCN did not refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper (indeed, the PCN does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper);

• Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(c) ECP’s PCN did not warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under Paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

Consequently, ECP has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s hirer and for this reason alone, POPLA may determine that ECP’s claim is invalid.

Should ECP try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper or hirer can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“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.......

.......... However keeper information is obtained, 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”.

2) Insert other points as appropriate

.......


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


Yours faithfully,


[A Hirer]

Coupon-mad

Thanks Edna Basher for noticing - I've replied to too many in one day so the firms all blur together!

Edna_Basher

There's been a glut of Premier cases on here recently so I can see how things get blurred - especially with your workload on this forum

Nemm

Great thank you for all that information.

Just wondering do you think I should just stick with that one point for my argument, cos if I try to explain why the car was parked like that due to the other car parking over too - does they make me out like I was at fault and must have been driving or know the driver?

Carthesis

Nemm wrote: »

Great thank you for all that information.

Just wondering do you think I should just stick with that one point for my argument, cos if I try to explain why the car was parked like that due to the other car parking over too - does they make me out like I was at fault and must have been driving or know the driver?

You *could* include it - written suitably it doesn't give anything away - but I don't think I'd bother. The mitigating circumstances of what happened on the day are rarely relevant, unless it's something like an Equalities Act violation or something of the like.