ECP Popla Kay St. Bolton

Umkomaas

Sounds like my POPLA appeal

Shhhhh.:lipsrseal

Alex4567753

Here is my ECP evidence rebuttal as submitted to POPLA, Some of it is in my own words, some of it is copied and pasted from other threads. Even though I haven't shared the ECP evidence pack with the forum and so it lacks context, maybe it will help somebody else in the same situation, as I said the evidence from them was quite generic. Not saying my rebuttal is great or anything, but maybe it will give some ideas.

As recommended, I submitted it by email as a PDF attatchment, POPLA case number in the PDF filename and in the email. I also asked in the email to confirm that my rebuttal of evidence contained in the PDF was added to the case file for the Assessor. Which they did do.

Alex4567753

POPLA Appeal - Evidence pack comments and rebuttal.

Date: 17th September 2017

Registered Keeper: Mr *** ***

PCN : ***

POPLA Appeal Number: ***

Date evidence pack received: 12th September 2017

Dear POPLA Assessor,

The evidence pack Euro Car Parks have provided appears to be a quick template copy
and paste document, ignoring some of my points completely, giving incorrect and
contradictory information and in other cases strengthening the points I made.

Firstly if I could draw your attention to the very first page where they have not even
bothered to change the VRM from the previous case they were working on.

On pages 3 and 9, ECP state that the PCN was issued on the 29/05/17, but on the PCN they provided to myself (page 5) the date of issue appears to be 07/06/17.

However on the NTK (page 7), the Date of Issue is 29/05/17, as well as on the ECP notice of rejection to appeal (page 12).

ECP also state (page 17) “Figure 4 is where I can confirm our PCN is POFA compliant. Please note that the “Date of issue” is the date of the event/breach of conditions. The “Letter date” is the date of when the PCN letter was sent to the registered keeper’s address.”

Again date of issue on the PCN provided by ECP in their evidence pack appears to show “Date Issued: 07/06/17“, the month could also be “05“ instead of “06“, it’s hard to read in such a low resolution scan. Either way the Date of Issue is not 29/05/17 on the PCN, but it is on the NTK, and so again ECP seem confused on when the alleged incident is meant to have taken place.

ECP’s NTK clearly does not comply with Paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

On Page 3, they state “An official appeal was received on the 09/07/2017 where Mr *** *** stated that the signs fail the test of large lettering. He refused to name the driver and claims that the Parking Charge notice (PCN) is not POFA compliant.”

As can be seen from my original appeal to ECP on 09/07/17 (page 10 of ECP’s evidence), I did not claim that the PCN was not POFA compliant, again it seems ECP have confused me with somebody else, perhaps the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced on page 1.

From Page 4 "Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.”

From my original POPLA appeal, the burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

ECP does not know who the driver is, and nor is there any obligation placed upon myself (the registered keeper) to name the driver under POFA 2012.

Regarding signage evidence. ECP have implied that the aerial photograph, signage pictures and barely readable locations of the signs that look like they were drawn on using Microsoft Paint, are of the car park in question, Kay Street - Bolton, even though they refer to it as “Kat Street” immediately below the aerial shot.

ECP Wrote: "The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges are that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms − for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable."

If the driver has a magnifying glass and is stood immediately in front of the sign, they may be able to read the part of the alleged signs containing terms and conditions that says in small font near the bottom “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE”

I would absolutely argue that the £100 “charge” is not clearly stated. I’m sure as a POPLA adjudicator you have seen this sign many times before, but I would again ask you to refer to the Beavis case sign with the £85 charge clearly shown and compare it with the image provided by ECP.


<Beavis Sign Photo>


The colours blue and yellow used by ECP are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid.

The sign images ECP have provided are close ups taken in isolation with no reference to scale and context, there is no evidence when these pictures were taken. These are not how the signs would have looked from a parked vehicle from any of the bays. It is even impossible to work out the direction a lot of the signs are facing.

Finally regarding signage at the site, i would like to draw your attention to Section 18, paragraph 10 (S18P10), of the BPA: CoP: “So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists”

I would ask the assessor to look at the aerial map provided by ECP and, if it is indeed an accurate reflection of the signage locations at the alleged site on the day the alleged event took place, conclude that the contract terms and conditions could be read from disabled parking bays without needing to leave the vehicle.

The points regarding this car parks signs I made in my original POPLA appeal remain and have not been dis-proven by this evidence.

Regarding ANPR cameras, ECP wrote "each individual camera is 93.1% accurate as specified by the supplier, it is well known (to include Police contraventions) that the information will not always be 100% correct, therefore there is always a possibility that there may be an error"

93.1% accuracy (according to the supplier) might be good enough for the supplier and Euro Car Parks but it certainly isn’t for any person on the receiving end of a PCN from an ECP ANPR controlled car park. ECP also state the cameras are fully tested prior to going into commission and for “a number of weeks”. So from this we can gather no sort of maintenance, checks or calibration of the ANPR system is in place. I wonder how long it was since ECP first installed the ANPR cameras at this site?

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in
paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of
Practice. I also say that ECP have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and
what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no
evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the
code.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ECP present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ECP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of the vehicle allegedly being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ECP to strict proof to the contrary.

So, there is still no evidence whatsoever the vehicle was parked in the car park in question. As I already stated, there are 2 images of the vehicle, 1 of the front and 1 of the back, images that could have been captured anywhere with any ANPR camera that ECP has access to, nothing to suggest the car was in any car park whatsoever, never mind the parking site that ECP allege the incident took place. As you can see, the photographs simply have a black overlay box with a time and date in white text that have been added to the photographs afterwards. ECP’s only weak claim is the vehicle left the car park 20 minutes after it entered.

Regarding Landowner Authority, ECP wrote on page 16 “Figure 4 is the agreement between the client and ECP to manage the car park”
Figure 4 starting on page 20 of the evidence is titled “British Parking Association Code of Practice”, this does not appear to show Landowner Authority. It appears that ECP Holdings Ltd. are the parent company of Euro Car Parks and the contract is between itself and not the landowner. In addition, the “Print” and “Date” hand-writing for ECP Holdings Ltd. is barely readable and unclear, the “Print” name is virtually identical to “Signature” but we have no idea who Robert Hant(?) is. What is his position within ECP Holdings Ltd., Is he authorised by the actual landowner? Where is the map showing the area to be enforced?

So, there is still no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the landowner contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practise (BPA:CoP) to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

Therefore I can only assume there is no Landowner Authority.

In their evidence pack ECP have not proven me incorrect on any one of my points raised in my POPLA appeal and have shown to be giving contradictory and confusing information regarding Date of Event and Date of Issue.

As a final note, I also hope in future ECP take more care with appellants’ personal data.

I again respectfully request that the appeal be upheld.

Yours Faithfully,


Mr ***
Registered Keeper

Alex4567753

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Jamie M****

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states signs at the site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. The operator has not shown the individual they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle. There is no evidence the operator has authority to operate on the land. The PCN is a penalty. Photographs of the appellant’s vehicle do not contain a date and time stamp, nor clearly identify the vehicle entering and exiting the site. Signs do not warn drivers that cameras will be used at the site to record vehicles entering and exiting the site. Photographic evidence is open to being doctored.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The signage at the site states, “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 CLEARLY INSIDE YOUR VEHICLE”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the vehicle was at the car park for 20 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. The appellant states signs at the site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. The operator has not shown the individual they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle. There is no evidence the operator has authority to operate on the land. The PCN is a penalty. Photographs of the appellant’s vehicle do not contain a date and time stamp, nor clearly identify the vehicle entering and exiting the site. Signs do not warn drivers that cameras will be used at the site to record vehicles entering and exiting the site. Photographic evidence is open to being doctored. In relation to signage, Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “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”. The operator has provided images of signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver had insufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. This is because only one photograph has been date stamped, due to this I am unable to determine if the signage is at the site and whether the motorist had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with them. As such, I confirm the PCN has been issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Alex4567753

I'd like to give a big massive thanks to everyone on this forum for helping me out, both with your replies and all the other useful information contained within. THANKYOU!

Coupon-mad

Brilliant effort and you deserved that win, well done!

Alex4567753

Thankyou so much Coupon-mad I'm incredibly grateful for all the work you have put into the guides and helping people out on this board.

I've informed the registered keeper and spouse this morning of the result, they are also very very grateful the charge was cancelled.

Lings625

Alex thanks for posting your rebuttal comments. I've just received a similar evidence pack from ECP and will be using similar rebuttal points as you. Thanks.

financerulez

Hi Alex

Could you post the POPLA case number (or private message it to me) so I can reference your case in my POPLA appeal please? It would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

FinanceRulez

Umkomaas

financerulez wrote: »

Hi Alex

Could you post the POPLA case number (or private message it to me) so I can reference your case in my POPLA appeal please? It would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

FinanceRulez

This is the last time Alex visited the forum.

Alex4567753 Alex4567753 is offline
Send Message User Lists
Last Activity: 23-09-2017 10:51 AM

It's unlikely you'll get a reply to your post. Try a PM and they should get an email telling them they have a message from you.