Euro Car Parks - Appeal Rejected - Any help appreciated, please.

poadb

Hi guys - I now need additional help.

I was hoping ECP would just fold - but they have responded to the POPLA appeal.
I now have 7 days to respond back.

Is there someone who can help me, please? I would like to share the PDF with someone privately who can read/digest it and advise what I should advise with?

Thanks.

DoaM

Just redact any personal detail, upload it to dropbox or similar and share a link here. People don't have time to do 1-1 offline help ... and we don't recommend it anyway - anyone offering to do so (unless they've got 1000s of posts here) may well be parking company stooges who'll shaft you.

poadb

Thanks DoaM - I think it's there general template though.

Here is my first draft rebutall:

----

Dear Sirs,
I received an evidence pack from ECP regarding the POPLA appeal xxxxxxx on the date 18/08/17 and wish to provide the following to support my appeal and rebuttal of ECP’s evidence pack as per my original appeal.
1.ECP have claimed they have an agreement for operating from 10/05/17

The evidence provided in Figure 5 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” is signed by “Gill Roberts” and “Barry Tucker” – in the same handwriting!, just a different coloured pen!It is also dated for the same date? Are we to believe this document was drafted and signed on the same day at the same location? If so, isn't it odd that the pen colour is different? Wouldn't such a formal and personal agreement, signed for on the same time; presumably in the same vacinity, be in the same colour pen? I find this highly dubious and I assert that this document is fraudulent and the correct document showing landowner authority and dated 10/05/17 has not been provided.
Furthermore, I have tried to Google "Gill Roberts - JLL" and have not found any meaningful results that link this name and this company.
During my research on this subject I have seen many cases where private car park management companies have falsified this document, often using employee signatures of their own establishment to sign the "agreement to operate".

2.ECP have claimed that there is BPA sign showing time length at the entrance
In the pack ECP claim this is at the entrance of the car park. Where the photograph was taken is around 9 metres away. This is incorrect. The actual entrance is further back, some 20 metres between the road exit/car park entry and sign. Over 2 times the distance. It can be seen in their overview of the car park that they have purposely missed out most of the entrance to make it seem like the sign is closer.
From the area map and photograph provided, you can see that the entrance does not display any signage to differentiate itself from the Crown Wharf Car Park that shares the same retail park road and round about. I therefore maintain that it's impossible to tell on entrance that different rules apply. I've come to learn that Parking Eye manage the Crown Wharf whilst ECP call JLL's car park the "Waterfront". I need to add here that the area has always been, and always will be, known to locals as the Wharf. In fact, The Wharf Bar only recently changed to Bar 10 and has stood on this part of the "waterfront" for years.

3.ECP has stated on multiple occasions in their evidence that the signs are clear:
The signs shown in the photographs provided in the evidence pack do not state any grace period and are therefore non compliant. It is also worth noting that on a lot of the signs that have been shown in the evidence pack, the ‘Walsall Waterfront Lesuire Park" is in larger lettering than the actual paragraph regarding the penalty, which seems to get lost in a wall of text on a bright yellow background.

In the evidence pack photographs are dated over 1 month before the alleged parking offence was committed. These pictures for the carpark and signage suffer the same date and time stamp issues whereby it can easily be assumed photographic tampering has taken place. No evidence has been provided by ECP to show that the signs shown in the photographs were in fact displayed on the date of the alleged offence. None of the photographs show where my vehical was parked, or that myself or the driver at the time were as close to the signage, from where the photogrpahs have been taken by ECP, on our route.

There are also multiple mistakes in the evidence pack that show that this is a template that is likely repeatedly used.

4.ECP have also shown no evidence for Pre Estimate of Loss although.
The Department for Transport guidelines state that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

I would conclude that the points that ECP Have raised regarding “fairness of the charge” are all business losses that ECP are trying to recover (and this is clearly articulated in their evidence pack). As is the 'remainder' to be paid back into office wages. Therefore, the charge is quite clearly to recover office losses.

5.ECP has also misapplied Fairlie vs Fenton:
Raising this point means the operator can sue the motorist if the motorist can sue the operator. In practice, this rarely is the case. The benefit to the motorist is the provision of a parking space, but if that goes wrong, the operator is quick to absolve themselves of responsibility. If the parking surface has a pothole and a vehicle suffers damage, or if the car park surface is covered in ice and the driver slips getting out of the car, then typically it will be the landowner the motorist sues, not the operator of a pair of cameras.
ECP have not provided any evidence regarding why they believe that Fairlie vs Fenton 1870 applies in this case. The incorrect wording has clearly been provided to fill out their case and distract from the facts of the matter.

In summary, the evidence provided by Euro Car Parks is full of inaccuracies. Land Ownership has not been provided sufficiently, Signage is not clear and most of the provided photographs have had date stamps appearingly doctored or were added to the original picture or taken after the offense, taken from a distance that makes them seem far more legible than they are. I'm not satisifed that ECP, who claim to have an agreement to operate on behalf of JLL, make it clear enough to visitors that their car park is different and individual to surrounding areas known to locals as the Wharf.

I ask you to review these and rule in my favour of my appeal.

Yours faithfully,
The owner

poadb

bumping for some help

Also - Do you think I should emphasise that the staff at the cinema told me it was free parking after 6pm? Afterall, this is the main reason I feel the PCN is unfair. Had they told me the car park operator had changed (a month before my last visit) I would have returned to pay. But given the confidence I had from previous visit sand not having to pay after 6pm - I didn't stand within reading distance of any signs to digest them.

Quentin

The cinema staff misleading you is your main point of complaint to the cinema management!!

Not really relevant to popla

poadb

I understand that but the cinema head office are not responding about the issue.

Any thoughts on my rebuttal?

Coupon-mad

Remove this completely, utterly bin it, because the Beavis case killed this argument:

4.ECP have also shown no evidence for Pre Estimate of Loss although.
The Department for Transport guidelines state that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

I would conclude that the points that ECP Have raised regarding “fairness of the charge” are all business losses that ECP are trying to recover (and this is clearly articulated in their evidence pack). As is the 'remainder' to be paid back into office wages. Therefore, the charge is quite clearly to recover office losses.

Replace it with a quote from the BPA CoP about the need to add additional signs to communicate new restrictions clearly to drivers, where it is a new site/change of enforcement. State that they have failed to draw the change to drivers' attention, and that drivers would have relied upon the long-term understanding confirmed by the on site Cinema, that parking has always been free after 6pm. Without extra signs to ensure the new regime was clearly drawn to everyone's attention, there can be no contract agreed, and the PCN cannot be held to have been properly given.

poadb

Excellent as always, thanks.

How's this:

Dear Sirs,
I received an evidence pack from ECP regarding the POPLA appeal xxxxxxx on the date 18/08/17 and wish to provide the following to support my appeal and rebuttal of ECP’s evidence pack as per my original appeal.
1.ECP have claimed they have an agreement for operating from 10/05/17

The evidence provided in Figure 5 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” is signed by “Gill Roberts” and “Barry Tucker” – in the same handwriting!, just a different coloured pen!It is also dated for the same date? Are we to believe this document was drafted and signed on the same day at the same location? If so, isn't it odd that the pen colour is different? Wouldn't such a formal and personal agreement, signed for on the same time; presumably in the same vacinity, be in the same colour pen? I find this highly dubious and I assert that this document is fraudulent and the correct document showing landowner authority and dated 10/05/17 has not been provided.
Furthermore, I have tried to Google "Gill Roberts - JLL" and have not found any meaningful results that link this name and this company.
During my research on this subject I have seen many cases where private car park management companies have falsified this document, often using employee signatures of their own establishment to sign the "agreement to operate".

2.ECP have claimed that there is BPA sign showing time length at the entrance
In the pack ECP claim this is at the entrance of the car park. Where the photograph was taken is around 9 metres away. This is incorrect. The actual entrance is further back, some 20 metres between the road exit/car park entry and sign. Over 2 times the distance. It can be seen in their overview of the car park that they have purposely missed out most of the entrance to make it seem like the sign is closer.
From the area map and photograph provided, you can see that the entrance does not display any signage to differentiate itself from the Crown Wharf Car Park that shares the same retail park road and round about. I therefore maintain that it's impossible to tell on entrance that different rules apply. I've come to learn that Parking Eye manage the Crown Wharf whilst ECP call JLL's car park the "Waterfront". I need to add here that the area has always been, and always will be, known to locals as the Wharf. In fact, The Wharf Bar only recently changed to Bar 10 and has stood on this part of the "waterfront" for years.

3.ECP has stated on multiple occasions in their evidence that the signs are clear:
The signs shown in the photographs provided in the evidence pack do not state any grace period and are therefore non compliant. It is also worth noting that on a lot of the signs that have been shown in the evidence pack, the ‘Walsall Waterfront Lesuire Park" is in larger lettering than the actual paragraph regarding the penalty, which seems to get lost in a wall of text on a bright yellow background.

In the evidence pack photographs are dated over 1 month before the alleged parking offence was committed. These pictures for the carpark and signage suffer the same date and time stamp issues whereby it can easily be assumed photographic tampering has taken place. No evidence has been provided by ECP to show that the signs shown in the photographs were in fact displayed on the date of the alleged offence. None of the photographs show where my vehical was parked, or that myself or the driver at the time were as close to the signage, from where the photogrpahs have been taken by ECP, on our route.

There are also multiple mistakes in the evidence pack that show that this is a template that is likely repeatedly used.

4.ECP have mentioned a breach of contract.
The BPA Code of Practice states, under section 18.3 "Specific parking-terms signage":
"18.9 Important: you may have to give other information on signs and notices under companies and consumer protection law and other legislation."
And
"18.11 Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes."
As it transpires, ECP allegedly starting operating on this car park from May 2017. My PCN was issued in June 2017. There is no signage whatsoever, available to motorists, that explains that new parking terms are in affect or that the car park is under new or different management than the surrounding car parks; which still operate a fairer tarriff to visitors allowing free parking after 6pm.
Parking on the "Waterfront" or "Wharf" car parks were free after 6pm before May 2017 - and this was the information being given out by Cinema staff even after ECP had started managing the car park. Even the Cinema staff were unaware, likely due to lack of signage, that the 'free after 6pm' rule had changed.
This is a clear breach of the BPA CoP, 18.3 (18.9 and 18.11 quoted above) terms, since ECP failed to draw the change to drivers' attention since drivers relied upon long-term understanding, confirmed by the on site Cinema, that parking has always been free after 6pm. Without extra signs to ensure the new regime was clearly drawn to everyone's attention, there can be no contract agreed, and the PCN cannot be held to have been properly given.

5.ECP has also misapplied Fairlie vs Fenton:
Raising this point means the operator can sue the motorist if the motorist can sue the operator. In practice, this rarely is the case. The benefit to the motorist is the provision of a parking space, but if that goes wrong, the operator is quick to absolve themselves of responsibility. If the parking surface has a pothole and a vehicle suffers damage, or if the car park surface is covered in ice and the driver slips getting out of the car, then typically it will be the landowner the motorist sues, not the operator of a pair of cameras.
ECP have not provided any evidence regarding why they believe that Fairlie vs Fenton 1870 applies in this case. The incorrect wording has clearly been provided to fill out their case and distract from the facts of the matter.

In summary, the evidence provided by Euro Car Parks is full of inaccuracies. Land Ownership has not been provided sufficiently, Signage is not clear and most of the provided photographs have had date stamps appearingly doctored or were added to the original picture or taken after the offense, taken from a distance that makes them seem far more legible than they are. I'm not satisifed that ECP, who claim to have an agreement to operate on behalf of JLL, make it clear enough to visitors that their car park is different and individual to surrounding areas known to locals as the Wharf.

I ask you to review these and rule in my favour of my appeal.

Yours faithfully,
The owner

Umkomaas

Couple of typos:

vacinity - vicinity
offense- offence

I've checked the JLL website which has a very comprehensive search facility to find any member of their 1,344 UK staff. Variations on 'Gill', 'Gillian', 'Gil', 'Jillian', 'Jill' and 'Roberts' delivered no positive results.

If you have time, why not contact JLL and ask them who 'Gill Roberts' is? If there is a real 'Gill Roberts' (may have left the company now?) send them a scan of the signature and ask them to confirm that it is her signature.

This could potentially open a can of worms in your favour. But only do it if you have time left on your POPLA submission deadline. Your priority is not to miss that deadline. Any 'Sherlock-ing' can be conducted later when the appeal result is returned and the dust has settled.

poadb

Excellent - thanks. I'm using WordPad and it doesn't offer any spellchecking, apparently.

I'm actually going to add that bit of text in too. And I have until Friday to submit my rebuttal, so I can try and find out who Gill Roberts is and see if it is of any use in my case.

Thanks again.