POPLA - according to them day is night, Euro Car Parks, Esso, near Gatwick

FlowerPower2017

My issue is with POPLA for not fairly weighing up evidence regarding a ticket I received for parking on private land and with Euro Car Parks for not taking sufficient note of my original appeal to them.

I received the ticket for overstaying my "welcome" at an Esso petrol station near Gatwick Airport. It states that I entered at 22.00 and departed at 22.38 and the maximum stay is 15 minutes.

In my initial appeal to Euro Car Parks I said, “There was no clear signage. It was dark at the time so if the signage was not illuminated it would have been even less clear. Furthermore, I was tired and not feeling well so for safety reasons pulled over and rested for a while"

The reply from Euro Car Parks looks like a standard template rejection. Although it starts off with, "Having carefully considered the evidence...." it makes no reference to what I said but just launches off with, "On entry to private land....." blah, blah, blah. Perhaps the most interesting bit of this general blurb is where it says, "There is clear entrance signage......it is the driver's responsibility to check all signage when entering any area that may have terms and conditions restricted to the area" I think the key words in this bit are, "may have". Also, to say there is clear entrance signage is a nonsense because even from one of their photos one can see a whole plethora of signs of all descriptions as you enter the site: the big Esso sign, an Entrance Only sign, some other big sign advertising something or other and a big banner sign saying Tesco club card points here - only BEHIND the big Tesco banner sign is there a sign on a pole that is UNLIT that refers to parking restrictions. One is hardly going to stop at the entrance to the site (from a busy main road) and start looking at signs that one is not even aware exists and can't even see. On entry to the site there are some parking spaces immediately to the right which is where I parked. There is a sign there BUT it is placed up on a slightly raised grassy embankment so not at eye level and it is on a pole that is UNLIT so would be impossible to readily notice it especially at night.

Because of the rejection from Euro Car Parks I appealed to POPLA. In my appeal to POLA I focussed on the fact that the signage was not clearly visible to counter the claim by Euro Car Parks that the signage was clear. I sent in photographic evidence to back up my claim. To contrast clear signs to the unclear one where I was park I sent in photos of other nearby petrol forecourts that Euro Car Parks also monitor where the signs are in your face and are on poles with lights on the top of the poles for illumination at night.

Another thing I pointed out to POPLA was the fact that the monitoring of this site is a relatively new thing (only starting at the beginning of this year according to Euro Car Parks evidence pack) and that when I last parked at the same spot last year there was obviously no parking restrictions.

More than three weeks went by before I heard from POPLA again. This time with a great deal of information and photos from Euro Car Parks. I was only given 7 days to provide my comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.

In their evidence Euro Car Parks distorted what I said. They said, "In (my name) appeal to POPLA he stated that he pulled over into the car park. The signage was not clear as the site was not well lit." I had to point out that I didn't say the site was not well light but rather I had said, THE SIGNAGE WAS NOT WELL LIT - or to be more precise the signage where I was was not lit at all AND it was above eye level.

They went on to say, "Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association's (BPA) code of practice explains that signs must be conspicuous and legible.........so that they are easy to see, read and understand". I pointed out to POPLA that they were in breach of this code of practice because THE SIGN WAS NOT EASY TO SEE because it was up high and unlit. If it had been easy to see I would have seen it and abided by it; I would not have deliberately ignored it and risk receiving a ticket.

As part of their evidence pack Euro Car Parks sent in a lot of photos including a photo of the sign where I was parked. It is a close-up photo so importantly does not show the top of the pole it is located on - if it did it would show no light on the top AND it was taken in daylight (as witnessed by the time on the photo). Also, their photo of the entrance to the site (referred to above) demonstrates that the sign where I was parked is not clearly visible from the site entrance.

In view of all of the above I thought I had put forward a very convincing case for POPLA to find in my favour. However, I was dumbfounded when I received the decision form POPLA saying that the PCN had been issued correctly. The bit that really got me was POPLA saying, "The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate the signage is lit in the dark...." Because I had demonstrated the exact opposite I felt compelled to complain to POPLA which is what I did. I felt as though POPLA hadn't really taken much notice of what I had said.

I said I was not happy with the way my appeal was handled and that I didn't feel that an even-handed approach was used. I reiterated what I had said before. However, in reply the complaint handler said, "The assessor has viewed the images provided by you, and then looked at the evidence provided by the operator. In the operator's evidence pack it has provided images taken of the signage at night and they are visual and able to be seen as the site is sufficiently lit..." This is utter nonsense because THE TIME THE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN IS MARKED ON THE PHOTOS - in respect of the two key photos referred to above one is marked as 13.59 and the other at 14.02. So, there we have it: according to POPLA day is night - perhaps they had their sunglasses on when looking at the photos!

The complaint handler goes on to say: "The decision is correct and will stand” and "We will not engage in any further correspondence with you in this matter". Perhaps I should contact them again pointing out that I don't like their dictatorial attitude and that they should make an appointment with Spec Savers as soon as possible.

I don't intend to take this laying down so what's the best thing to do?

To gather evidence in the very short time (7 days) that I was given by POPLA I had to hire a cab (I didn't have my own vechicle available) to go back to the scene of the "crime". Ideally I would like to send both POPLA and Euro Car Parks tickets (small claim demands) - to POPLA for the cost of the cab plus my time and to Euro Car Parks for wasting my time. Any suggestions please?

I wanted to attach some photos that they sent me but didn't know how to do this - could someone kindly advise please.

I've been advised that I should complain again but this time to the lead adjudicator, John Gallagher. What do others think?

I've just had a letter from a debt collection agency asking for £160 even though the original amount was for £100. And surely, in the first instance, Euro Car Parks should be coming after me for the £100. I don't intend to give anybody anything. Should be interesting if this comes to court - I'll put in a counter claim gainst both POPLA and Euro Car Parks.

Has anyone else been unhappy because of the way they've been treated by POPLA?

Redx

a few have yes, but usually the complaints go nowhere

by all means complain to J.G. , but if he doesnt change the decision you are stuffed with popla and nowhere to go

you can ignore the DRP letters, they are powerless

you can fight this in court if ECP issue an MCOL within the next 6 years , so come back if you get an LBC or an MCOL in that time

if a judge says pay , then pay , promptly

I doubt that you can take popla to the small claims court

host your pics on tinypic and put a dead URL in your reply here, changing http to hxxp

FlowerPower2017

ok Redx, thanks for your thoughts.

The_Deep

If they were to show a judge pictures clearly marked as taken during the day, but claim they were taken at night he/she is unlikely to be impressed.

In any event, 15 minutes hardly seems long enough to fill a car with fuel, especially in busy periods, when there are queues at the pumps ans cash desks, when they are short staffed, checking your tyres, if you are buying food which needs to be microwaved, or when a till roll needs to be changed.

Also, what about grace periods? The time limit may well be deemed an unfair term in a consumer contract.

KeithP

Redx wrote: »

you can fight this in court if ECP issue an MCOL within the next 6 years , so come back if you get an LBC or an MCOL in that time

...and OP, keep your receipt for the taxi fare and claim that back too when you win.

FlowerPower2017

Thanks, The Deep, for your take on the matter.

FlowerPower2017

Hi again Redx, what's an LBC and a MCOL?

FlowerPower2017

Hello Keith, yes I will keep receipt, what's OP?

Ralph-y

you really need to read the newbies thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

all the acronyms are to be found lurking there .......

Ralph:cool:

Loadsofchildren123

The "OP" is the "Original Poster" - ie you


LBC is a Letter Before Claim from solicitors
MCOL is the online court claims service in Northampton where these types of small claims are issued. The case eventually gets transferred to your home court when it becomes clear it's defended.
These acronyms, and others, are explained in the Newbies thread

Coupon-mad

Euro never try court, as it stands, so this isn't something to worry about (but keep all papers just in case for later).

I've been advised that I should complain again but this time to the lead adjudicator, John Gallagher.

I would do that, keep it short, no long detail like in your first post, nothing about it being a template rejection letter (it always is from this industry, means nothing).

I would try to stick with one paragraph ONLY; make sure your first line states that the Assessor erred or that they must have had sight of night-time photos you were not party to, because how can this photo (daylight one attached) have caused the Assessor to say "The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate the signage is lit in the dark...."

Address it for the personal attention of John Gallagher, and if it were me, I would send a letter with 'strictly personal and confidential' and his name written across on the envelope seal, because emails are intercepted by 'the Team' (who will fob you off again) and you can't email him personally.