Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal

sk82

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states “Charges apply 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays; This car park is patrolled, failure to comply with the following may result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice: Display a valid ticket or season ticket clearly inside your vehicle or have a valid pay by phone session”. The operator has provided images from the ANPR system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle --- entered the site on --- 2016, at 10:59 and exited the site at 12:19. The operator has provided a copy of the system print out, this is an online transaction record showing a search for the appellant’s vehicle. From this, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle was registered against a payment for a 59 minute stay. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed each of these below. • No contract with the driver, there was inadequate signage. The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with site plans for the multiple car parks. The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. • No contract with landowner to authorise the issue of PCN’s. The operator has produced a landowner contract to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. • ANPR system is not accurate and the signage does not inform drivers of what the ANPR system is used for. In response to this, the operator states that they have “developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. ParkingEye is regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations. Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly” Further they state that “all ANPR equipment is monitored and kept in good working order. A central team of trained Technical Support Engineers proactively monitor the performance of all systems to ensure the accuracy of data collected. Automated monitoring and alerting ensure potential issues are highlighted and dealt with quickly along with data management routines to ensure affected data does not result in a Parking Charge being issued. Dedicated mobile engineers respond to physical faults which require on-site resolution with testing periods to ensure equipment is configured and working to our high standards. Equipment is selected and deployed to ensure a reliable and robust solution which performs consistently and accurately”. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. Further signage at the site states “We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday including bank holidays”. If the driver had concerns about the validity of the signage and did not feel that, as a result, they could not comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park • No planning permission to erect the ANPR system. In response to this, the appellant would need to raise any concern regarding the planning permission to a relevant body such as the local council. This point is immaterial to the appeal as it does not have an impact on the appellant being able to meet the terms and conditions. • Non-compliant Notice to Keeper. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has raised several grounds of requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4; paragraph 9, that he does not feel the Notice to Keeper complies with. As the appellant has raised these grounds, I have reviewed all of paragraph 9 in PoFA and the requirement of the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has met all of these requirements. • Non genuine pre-estimate of loss. In response to the appellant stating that the charge is a non-genuine pre-estimate of loss, the legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions at the site, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. The appellant’s vehicle remained on the site for one hour and 20 minutes and only a payment of 59 minutes was registered against the vehicle. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal

Coupon-mad

sk82 wrote: »

I can't believe it, my appeal has been rejected. Does anyone know where I go from here. I'm so worried about this now, I don't know how I'll go to court when I'm 8 months pregnant.

Seeing as Euro Car parks never try court, we think you are safe!

It's a shame you never showed us a draft POPLA appeal first, before submitting it, as we would have suggested the grace periods/Kelvin Reynolds BPA article.

If this is a retail park, as it's Christmas and you have a young family, now is the time to fire off a very angry email or make a very upset phone call, to the landowners/retailers. That often works, saying you will never use the place again and nor will your family, and you were thinking of Christmas purchases connected to having a baby due, but now you will go elsewhere is this is not cancelled.

You know who to complain to, because you have this:

The operator has produced a landowner contract to prove they can operate on the land.

apart from that, ignore them and enjoy your new baby. Come back to us to confirm if you get it cancelled, and ignore any debt demand letters (not ignoring a court claim of course, but ECP are not a firm which sues).

Umkomaas

ANPR system is not accurate and the signage does not inform drivers of what the ANPR system is used for. In response to this, the operator states that they have “developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. ParkingEye is regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations. Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site.

Well, well, well, which appeal has this Assessor been dealing with? This is an ECP appeal, yet off they go about ParkingEye.

Another 'procedural error' or some very sloppy template copying and pasting, uncleansed since its previous use?

Worth a tilt at John Gallagher?

sk82

Thank you! That's very reassuring, I hope they don't pursue thus any further

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Well, well, well, which appeal has this Assessor been dealing with? This is an ECP appeal, yet off they go about ParkingEye.

Another 'procedural error' or some very sloppy template copying and pasting, uncleansed since its previous use?

Worth a tilt at John Gallagher?

Definitely, but the OP will need assistance to write a complaint email to POPLA. I don't have time!

That's very reassuring, I hope they don't pursue thus any further

They will send letters, unless you get it cancelled by complaint - easy for you to do, you know who the landowner is.

Fruitcake

sk82 wrote: »

Thank you! That's very reassuring, I hope they don't pursue thus any further

If they do, you will be the first, in which case you come back here for more help.

PoPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist so you do not have to pay unless a judge tells you to, which is unlikely with this company.

You will probably get debt collector letters for some time to come. The NEWBIES thread tells you why it is safe to ignore them. Please don't come back and tell us about debt crawler letters. We neither need nor want to know because you now know they can be ignored.

sk82

Thank you, I will keep you all updated
.