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

Umkomaas

so I can try and find out who Gill Roberts is and see if it is of any use in my case

It could have use in your case, but it could have significant ramifications for ECP. Don't let this drop if you do unveil something - come back (even if you don't get it until after POPLA) and we'll advise on next steps.

poadb

In the meantime - should I post my rebuttal as is?
Is it a strong enough argument?

Coupon-mad

''Are in affect'' should be ''are in effect''.

And at the start, make it simpler than this:

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.

I wouldn't use the word 'rebuttal', I use the word 'comments' because that's all that POPLA allows you to do. I recommend just saying 'these are my comments on the evidence pack':

I would remove the Fairlie v Fenton point - it is way above POPLA Assessors' heads!

poadb

Thanks again:

Here's hopefully my final edit:

Dear Sirs,
I received an evidence pack from ECP regarding the POPLA appeal xxxxxxx on the date 18/08/17 and these are my comments on the evidence pack:

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 at the same time; presumably in the same vicinity, 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".
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.

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 started operating on this car park from May 2017. The PCN I received was issued in June 2017. There is no signage whatsoever, available to motorists, that explains that new parking terms are in effect 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.

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 offence, 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

Coupon-mad

Nice. You will have to email that to POPLA as it's too long for the Portal.

head it:

Comments on evidence - FTAO the Assessor - code xxxxxxxxxx

poadb

I've replied to the email I got from POPLA asking for my comments. I'll call them tomorrow to ensure they received it. Thanks again everyone.

poadb

I've been checking my emails constantly this week. Finally got what I was waiting for!


I'm so grateful for your help guys, everyone that helped me in this thread, the NEWBIES sticky and even the members that have fought the battle and won - because you all helped me win too.


Special thanks to Coupon-Mad, you're particularly awesome, Umkomaas, Quentin, DoaM and RedX

:beer::beer:

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
{Private details removed by MSE Forum Team}

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a valid payment being made.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on this land. The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is insufficient. The appellant believes that the operator has failed to adhere to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant believes that the operator’s evidence has been tampered with. The appellant feels that the signs on site do not clearly explain that the car park is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras or what the data captured by the cameras is used for. The appellant believes that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
In his grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCNs on this land. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site 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.” In response to this, the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract it holds between itself and the landowner. I note the contract was signed on 10 May 2017. However, there is no reference in this document to the length of time the contract will run for. As a result, I cannot determine whether or not the operator had the relevant authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the PCN in question. For clarity, I acknowledge the reason the operator issued the appellant with a PCN. I do not believe that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. As a result, I am satisfied that on this particular occasion, the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal. However, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

nosferatu1001

Nicely done!

Umkomaas

the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract it holds between itself and the landowner. I note the contract was signed on 10 May 2017. However, there is no reference in this document to the length of time the contract will run for.

Contract signed 10 May 2017, PCN issued June 2017. Maximum 6 weeks later.

As a result, I cannot determine whether or not the operator had the relevant authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the PCN in question

It would be one hell of a short contract if it wasn't still running in June 2017!

I bet the PPC is mightily p1ssed with that decision. Fantastic. Ha ha! :rotfl:

Well done @poadb. :T

poadb

Should I post my results in the Decisions thread?