After just winning a POPLA!

DD1A

Ok il be home in 30 mins il submit it by the end of the day thanks again CM!

DD1A

Final submission completed, attached as pdf and emailed i will keep you posted on this outcome fingers crossed and thanks again to all that has spent time on this one!

ECP are not showing any knowledge of which site we are dealing with and
responding with completely irrelevant information, what is the point of a display in the
Rye car park showing tariffs of a car park over 100 miles away,

Euro Car Parks can confirm that the signage on site clearly dispalys the tariff
at West Street Car Park – Newbury (Figure 2)

• ECP list their parking tariff for “up to 32 minutes” whereas the picture of the sign they
attached states “up to 20 minutes”

• The photos are undated but which ones are from a car park in Newbury and which
are from Rye, who knows?

• There also seems to be an awkwardly placed white & red notice photo-
shopped/edited onto the front of the pay & display machines shown because they
show another undated photo of the ‘same’ machines with no white & red rectangle
planted on top... are these machines at the Newbury car park?

• ECP appear to have shown a sample NTK, where the ‘date of issue’ is misleading

• My evidence clearly shows that the Rye car park signage from entry to exit does not
correspond to ECP’s and is unclear/not-visible as they think it is.

• What has this point below which ECP have in their evidence got anything to do with
this case as and also my name is clearly a male’s name

We acknowledge the fact that Daniel Asgari’s child felt ill and that is why she parked
in the car park, however, a pay and display ticket still needed to be purchased

• Their evidence also shows a snapshot of motorists’ payment allegedly made from 2
machines again which could be Newbury related, on two days listed all payments to
one machine are ‘timed’ at 23:45PM and all payments to the other are ‘timed’ at
4AM. That is impossible. Either that or that’s the time a few payments were uploaded
to the servers, which suggests something was wrong with the machines if only a few
payments were made on those days, then uploaded in a batch at 23:45PM and 4AM
respectively. As evidence its useless.

DD1A

We have lost and been unsuccessful!

This was received today from Popla

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Alexandra Wilcock
Assessor summary of operator case
There was no valid pay and display/permit purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. He says the operator has failed to demonstrate that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. The appellant advised that the operator has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate authorisation to issues Parking Charge Notice (PCN). He states that the signage on site is not clear and does not show the charge amount or the sum of the charge. The appellant says the operator has failed to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 13. The appellant has provided POPLA with images of the site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state “Charges apply Monday to Sunday. This car park is patrolled. Failure to comply with the following may result in the issue of a £85 Parking Charge Notice. Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle”. The operator has issued a £85 PCN due to there being no valid pay and display/permit being purchased. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras (ANPR), the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle, GK16 VDR, entering the site at 19:36, exiting at 19:51; the period of stay was 15 minutes. The appellant states the notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012. He says the operator has failed to demonstrate that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the operator has transferred liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant advised that the operator has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate authorisation to issues PCN. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a land registry document which confirms the operator is the landowner on the site. Therefore, it would not need authorisation from any of company to issue PCN’s on the site in question. He states that the signage on site is not clear and does not show the charge amount or the sum of the charge. The appellant has provided POPLA with images of the site. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. After reviewing the signage I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. This 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 appellant says the operator has failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice Section 13. I note the appellant’s comments however, the BPA Code of Practice Section 13.2 states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. A grace period permits motorists a reasonable time period to decide whether to park on site or leave. The appellant has not provided any reasons or any explanation to why the vehicle remained on site for 15 minutes. As such, I do not feel like I can confirm whether 15 minutes was a reasonable grace period or not. The operator has provided a system print out which shows the driver did not make an appropriate payment for parking time. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the driver remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that an appropriate payment for parking must be made. As the driver remained on site without making a payment for parking, they failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.

DD1A

My last battle was a win, not experienced a loss at popla before. What happens now is there a next level to continue to or it’s pay up time? TIA

Umkomaas

The POPLA decision is not binding on you. Neither the PPC nor POPLA can tell you to pay this. Only a judge can do so. You can, if you wish, ignore anything further from ECP or their debt collectors, unless or until a LBC or real court papers are served on you.

The appellant has not provided any reasons or any explanation to why the vehicle remained on site for 15 minutes. As such, I do not feel like I can confirm whether 15 minutes was a reasonable grace period or not.

I was rather interested that ECP apparently own the car park, so I did a bit of Googling and came across this interesting snippet where ECP told the Rye Town Council planning meeting that they provided a 15 minutes Grace Period at the car park. So they tell the Town Council one thing (albeit in 2014), yet another to POPLA.

http://www.ryetowncouncil.gov.uk/cmsfiles/docs/Minutes/Planning/2014-15/29%20September%202014%20(PT08).PDF

Not of a great help to you at this stage, but it’s a discrepancy you might want to debate with a judge should it go that far. ECP are not litigious, only 3 cases in the past 3 years (and these might well have been about matters other than parking), although they might have a dabble given they apparently own the land and with a POPLA decision in their back pocket.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

nosferatu1001

Indeed, don’t pay up. You could reject the decision- write to ecp telling them that their grace period was stated as 15 minutes yet lied to,popla by omission by not letting them know that.

Umkomaas

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Indeed, don’t pay up. You could reject the decision- write to ecp telling them that their grace period was stated as 15 minutes yet lied to,popla by omission by not letting them know that.

it wasn’t by ‘omission’ it was seemingly by ‘commission’ - in their evidence pack. See post #65.

According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a
reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before
enforcement action is taken. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted; the
grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. I can
confirm that Euro Car Parks have given ******* the suitable grace period of 10 minutes
and was issued a Parking Charge Notice.

DD1A

Thank you for the pointers I will note these.

I’m still unsure of the next steps, now that the decision is in ECP favour does this now mean I am waiting for another payment reminder now from them or is this what popla have basically done finalising the case and ECP are just sitting there rubbing their hands together waiting for my payment. If I choose to ignore anything from now on what could/would be expected next from them?

Umkomaas

ECP are just sitting there rubbing their hands together waiting for my payment.

They might be. Whether they get any payment is entirely up to you. They are totally in your hands on that count at the moment!

If I choose to ignore anything from now on what could/would be expected next from them?

They’ll probably give it 14 days, send a reminder, then hand it over powerless debt collectors, who cannot send the boys round, nor kidnap your child/grandchild, nor skin your cat alive. All they can do is send silly letters and maybe chance a phone call (read up now on blocking/reporting nuisance callers).

All about debt collectors in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4. In short, ignore them.

They might make an almost unheard of venture into litigation (see my previous post), but just come back for help if they do so.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, only a court can enforce payment, and this is ECP - noone to actually be concerned about. POPLA is there just to reduce the amount of trees wasted by debt collectors when it comes to ECP.