POPLA Appeal - EuroCarParks - The Blue Boar

Billco_2

Ok first draft coming up. - Major Work In Progress

1. (I’m coming back to this one, because everyone is making me feel like there MUST be something wrong with it – I’m just not seeing it yet)

2. Eurocarparks have still failed to show that the individual it is pursuing is in fact liable for charge. Further to this I would like to note that page 7, Eurocarparks point out that XXX has not been confirmed to be the driver on the day in question, but from page 10 onwards Eurocarparks have chosen to refer to XXX as being the driver of the vehicle!

3. With regards to the supposed proof that the machine was working at the time. I would like to draw your attention to 2 points.

(i) XXX’s vehicle entered the car park at 14:10. Given a perfectly reasonable 10 minutes to find a parking space and unload all the passengers from the vehicle, the driver would have then reached the payment machine at approximately 14:20.

The last payment shown was at 14:13 and then no further payments were made until 15:20. Surely this would suggest that the machine in question was not working correctly for this period of time as outside of this 67 minute window all other transactions are no further than 20 minutes apart.

(ii) I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that there appear to be 2 reference numbers shown on the supposed proof of payment "evidence".

BOAR01A and BOAR01B.

This would indicate to me that Eurocarparks believe they have two machines on site at the Blue Boar Car Park? However, their own evidence pack, page 17, clearly shows there is only one machine.

As there are no payment by phone options available in this car park, at least according to Eurocarparks own signage, I would question the authenticity of this “evidence”

Eurocarparks also state:

"All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced."

I feel that I must point out that, in the case of the Blue Boar Car Park, "various means of paying for parking", would appear to mean, ONE ticket machine.

4. I would put it that as Eurocarparks’ signage is inaccessible during busy periods, it therefore cannot comply with the BPA requirements as they cannot be read by customers.

5. With regards to the signage. I would like to point out the following.

(i) Sign marked ES& as previously stated is surrounded by wheelie bins and therefore inaccessible by customers.

This has once again been shown in Eurocarparks own photographs of the site.

I would also like to remind Eurocarparks that, when a delivery is in place, this sign is not visible at all.

(ii) Signs marked ANPR PD2, while shown quite clearly in Eurocarparks photography, would appear to have been taken in a near empty car park.

Whilst in reality, with spaces being full of vehicles at the time of entry, these signs are not at all visible for customers.

I would also say, that even with Eurocarparks’ own photograph of sign, ANPR PD2, I find it impossible to read the red lettering present at the bottom of the sign.

What chances then, then does a customer have of reading this from a distance, in a busy car park with vehicles blocking access to the signs?

(iii) Eurocarparks own ticket machine, on the screen, informs customers that they should “Please Enter Full License Plate Details”

The UK does not have “licence plates” – We have VRMs.

They do not show the vehicle has a licence to drive on public roads, unlike the US system.

Therefore it is impossible to comply with Eurocarparks’ terms.

Even Eurocarparks’ own photos show vehicles parked in yellow hatch markings blocking access and visibility.

I question how much effort is put into making sure signs are kept visible to customers when no effort has been made to clear the area before taking their own photographic records.

(iv) I would also like to point out that the signage on the entrance and exit of the car park is placed on the passenger side of the vehicle, when the vehicle follows the one way system in place. This makes it increasingly difficult for a driver to read the aforementioned signs, when entering or leaving the car park.

6. Eurocarparks have made no effort whatsoever to show evidence of Landowner Authority – in compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

No evidence has been submitted to confirm that this managing agent have the authority to act on the behalf of the landowner, especially with regards to entering into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies.

7. Eurocarparks have also failed to show any evidence whatsoever of a reliable ANPR system.

8. Eurocarparks have failed to address the issue of any legitimate interest in enforcing a charge..

Billco_2

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Cursory glances dont cut it
Usually they get dates wrong. For example after the period of 28 days starting with the day after the notice is given ends up being within 28 dys, or 29 days from date of issue etc.

You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.


So thats wrong then? As thats what it says on the PCN.

Billco_2

Dya know I really feel like ECP have done a terrible job at responding to this appeal. They seem to have ignored half the points and their evidence pack is tiny compared to others i've seen on here.

But after all that - I feel like my response is even worse. Really struggling with this one.

Still got a few more days. I'll keep refining as I can!

Thanks guys

MikeHammer

Billco wrote: »

You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.


So thats wrong then? As thats what it says on the PCN.

Also interested to hear the response to this anomaly..

Billco_2

MikeHammer wrote: »

Also interested to hear the response to this anomaly..

I would suspect i've mis-understood.

Surely it can't be THAT easy :rotfl:

MikeHammer

Yes - that’s what I was thinking too!

Was wondering more if it’s not exactly decisive in its own right, more a contributory factor highlighting sketchy/non-compliance - I don’t see why they need to change the wording (29 days, not 28, etc.) from the BPA’s CoP.

nosferatu1001

It’s mkre that the cop isn’t law, pofa is. 29 days seems right. What other threads did you find about ecp?

Yes, ecp responses are woeful. Who cares? They don5 do court.

MikeHammer

Sorry - it's POFA section 8(2f) that states the 28 day thing, not BPA CoP - my mistake..

So question still stands - is the following exerpt from the ECP letter wrong (and therefore a key thing to highlight at POPLA stage)?

"You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you."

Umkomaas

This is what PoFA says - para 4(4):

4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given.

After the end of the period of 28 days is 29 days.

nosferatu1001

Yes, as pointed out - 29 days is not wrong, because they have correctly stated it is from date given. Some were using it from date issued.