ECP POPLA Code issued...now what?

first78

Redx wrote: »

read the above you were told weeks and weeks ago

look for that flaw in their wording compared to POFA2012

I think it was a flawed date if I remember correctly (or maybe they dont quote the correct wording for POFA2012 to hold up ?)

as a side issue, WHY oh WHY have you not complained to Sainsburys and got the pcn cancelled by them as the landholder ?

you were in their supermarket/cafe etc , a paying customer , so why no strong complaint , in writing , to their CEO or HEAD OFFICE

you need to think outside the box and be pro-active with these things

they employed these par@sites , so are responsible, so threaten them with losing your custom, show redacted receipts and bank statements etc, go got their jugular, make them see the grief they bring to loyal customers !!!

it really p***s me off that people dont complain about these things, these businesses rely on customers frequenting their stores , spending money



remember , ECP say its a Sainsburys car park, managed by ECP, so ECP dont own it

my local Morrisons and ASDA have NO parking restrictions for customers , who can stay AS LONG AS THEY LIKE ! (and yes they both have cafes , usually very busy cafes too)

Thanks, I have just started going through Paragraph 9 of schedule 4 but so far it seems that ECP have mentioned what they need to in the PCN...I'll keep looking though!! Is there any advice on how to find what the flawed wording is?

I'm guessing that at this point it is too late to make a complaint to Sainsbury's? I was a paying customer and although I do not have receipts there will be evidence of transactions on my bank statements. I feel stupid for not having complained to Sainsbury's at the time, I just panicked about the PCN.

I don't want ECP to win but I feel stressed and stupid and a bit defeated just now.

first78

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegentleway View Post
. This is because it does not give the correct timescale for the transfer of liability. Under PoFA 2012, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’, but the notice to keeper states ’… 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …’.
POFA actually says Date posted not Date issued.


I have just seen this on the POPLA decisions thread #2666. The quote is the same as the wording ECP have used in the PCN they sent me...is this a point I can use in my evidence?

Redx

yes , that must be it , so use it anyway , if its flawed in such a manner

POFA2012 is very strict on these matters and wording , so yes , if somebody else found it and used it and won , do the same

also look for any other issues, like that contract , and signage for example

glad to see you are finally getting to grips with it because all this NTK business should have been researched several weeks ago when you first came here (I know because I decided to read the thread from start to finish this time, and you were given early warning and told to check that newbies thread too)

keep going

and yes you should definitely complain anyway, the shabby treatment of innocent customers like yourself is appalling , nobody should be penalised for spending money in their establishments , even if they are tardy

first78

Redx wrote: »

yes , that must be it , so use it anyway

POFA2012 is very strict on these matters and wording , so yes , if somebody else found it and used it and won , do the same

also look for any other issues, like that contract , and signage for example

glad to see you are finally getting to grips with it because all this NTK business should have been researched several weeks ago when you first came here (I know because I decided to read the thread from start to finish this time, and you were given early warning and told to check that newbies thread too)

keep going

and yes you should definitley complain anyway, the shabby treatment of innocent customers like yourself is appalling , nobody should be penalised for spending money in their establishments , even if they are tardy

Okay, I'm glad I'm going along the right lines...thanks. I have read the Newbies thread but have found it hard to understand, I haven't given up, I'm still here and I am doing the best I can.

Is there somewhere particular I should be looking regarding the contract? It doesn't look like a tailored one, just set out points and has the two sets of signatures with the dates at the end.

Thanks for all the help, I am extremely grateful.

Redx

look for a starting date , should be signed AND DATED by both sides with names and job titles etc , should specify the period it runs for , should be a clear path from the landholder through to the parking company

should also specify what action the PPC can take (or cannot take) , should specify what the free period of parking is

in other words , it should have binding legal authority for them to do what they do, pass permission along , say if there are any caveats or restrictions etc

it should comply with the BPA CoP

if it is heavily redacted , say so

check what the signage says , does it comply with the BPA CoP ? is it full of words and not clear (unlike the PE signs in the BEAVIS case) - tiny fonts ? difficult to read ? correct colours ?

very few signs in the UK are compliant , so look for the flaws

Coupon-mad

first78 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegentleway View Post
. This is because it does not give the correct timescale for the transfer of liability. Under PoFA 2012, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’, but the notice to keeper states ’… 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …’.
POFA actually says Date posted not Date issued.


I have just seen this on the POPLA decisions thread #2666. The quote is the same as the wording ECP have used in the PCN they sent me...is this a point I can use in my evidence?

I doubt your PCN has that flaw, and I think you've missed the point and quoted the wrong bit from the decisions. It wasn't about the wording, it was about what ECP called the 'date given' (top right of the PCN). ECP had a temporary error in the Spring, until around May(?) where they put the 'date given' or 'date issued' as a date earlier than the date they posted it.

Then they put that right. This has been discussed loads of times on ECP threads galore and needs no scrutiny any more, unless yours has a 'date issued'/date given or 'date of issue' that is EARLIER than the date of posting. I doubt it, unless yours was from more than a couple of months ago.

Stop poring over the POFA and relax! So what if this wins or not?!

Just beginning to feel beaten by this...I feel stressed because I don't understand what I'm doing and with only having 5 days to make a written response I'm in a bit of a panic.

Oh come on, it's only ECP!

You could ignore them if you want, I have done in the past before POPLA existed (which is not the be-all and end-all) and ECP are not litigious. So, maybe you will win, maybe not, but so what?

You won't be PAYING.

Redx

I did say earlier that I thought the error was that spurious date , but then with the pofa wording I thought it could be that too

landholder contract and signage are more important factors and always have been however, so concentrate on those

first78

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I doubt your PCN has that flaw, and I think you've missed the point and quoted the wrong bit from the decisions. It wasn't about the wording, it was about what ECP called the 'date given' (top right of the PCN). ECP had a temporary error in the Spring, until around May(?) where they put the 'date given' or 'date issued' as a date earlier than the date they posted it.

Then they put that right. This has been discussed loads of times on ECP threads galore and needs no scrutiny any more, unless yours has a 'date issued'/date given or 'date of issue' that is EARLIER than the date of posting. I doubt it, unless yours was from more than a couple of months ago.

I think the issue with the date does apply to me, on the top right corner of the letter it states "date issued 12/05/17" and "letter date 19/05/17".

In the body of the letter there is then a paragraph about "You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know etc etc.

So am I right that this has not complied with POFA?

DoaM

A recent POPLA appeal (that failed unfortunately - but that's a different matter; see the POPLA Decisions thread) showed that ECP's contract was with ECP Holdings (I think) and not with the actual landowner. Therefore there was no provable chain of authority from the landowner.

Yours may be like this, but you probably won't know until ECP respond to your POPLA appeal.

first78

DoaM wrote: »

A recent POPLA appeal (that failed unfortunately - but that's a different matter; see the POPLA Decisions thread) showed that ECP's contract was with ECP Holdings (I think) and not with the actual landowner. Therefore there was no provable chain of authority from the landowner.

Yours may be like this, but you probably won't know until ECP respond to your POPLA appeal.

I have the evidence pack from ECP, I haven't seen any mention of ECP Holdings.