POPLA Appeal - EuroCarParks - The Blue Boar

Billco_2

Darn.....well like I said I knew that would have been too easy

Thanks guys, will make some more additions/alterations today!

I kind of want to make a big stink about the fact that they havn't even attempted to show landowner authority. But also don't want to push my luck too far - if that makes any sense.

Billco_2

Final draft. If nobody suggests otherwise I will be submitting this at end of play tomorrow.

Thanks once again to everyone that has helped

Contrary to EuroCarParks statements that their NTK’s do comply to the requirements of PoFA 2012 I would like to point out the following discrepancies.

(i)The notice to keeper does not give the correct timescale for the transfer of liability. Under PoFA 2012, transfer of liability occurs after ’28 days beginning from the day after the date the notice is given’, but the notice to keeper states’…29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued)…’.

I believe this to be misleading towards the customer.

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 points 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. This is a blatant assumption on the part of Eurocarparks and should be treated as such.

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 the 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 sheet. 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 on site.

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

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 does a customer have of reading this from a distance, in a busy car park?

(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 evidence photographs.

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 behalf of the landowner, especially with regards to entering into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies.

Therefore I once again question Eurocarparks’ authority to issue parking tickets at this site.

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

(i) I would also like to again point out that there is no signage informing a potential customer that the carpark is ANPR controlled until after entering the site.

They quote:
“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.”

However, they make no mention of a grace period BEFORE a ticket has been purchased. Once again confirming my point that, after discovering the faulty machine and finding no alternatives, had the driver then left the car-park as suggested by Eurocarparks, they still would have received a ticket by post.

(ii)Eurocarparks do however comment frequently that as the car park is ANPR controlled, no notes placed in the windscreen, such as the driver did on the day, would be seen.

“As previously advised the car park is camera controlled and any notes/ pay and display ticket displayed on the dashboard will not be seen.”

Why then, does Eurocarparks repeatedly mention that a ticket must be paid and DISPLAYED at all times? As do the few “visible“ signs in the car park.

This is misleading to a customer and makes them think that an actual flesh and blood person, that could be reasoned with, is patrolling the site, which is why I windscreen note was placed in the first place.

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

I would also like to question the response given by Eurocarparks when describing the parking tariff at The Blue Boar car park.

Taken from their own evidence pack:
Up to 2 hours and 41 minutes 1.20
Up to 2 hours 2.00
Up to 3 hours 3.00
How then does parking for 2 hours and 41 minutes calculate to be less than for parking up to 2 hours? I respectfully suggest that Eurocarparks should sort out their own tariff system before being allowed to charge customers.

Billco_2

And Success!

POPLA allowed the appeal based on no proof of landowner authority supplied by ECP.

Thanks to everyone that helped as always! Much appreciated

Would it be considered bad form to now send ECP a letter full of middle finger emojis??

I'll add this to the POPLA thread.

"The appellant has stated that they do not believe the operator has the authority to pursue charges or form contracts at this car park.

Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for.

In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

In this case the operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal.

As such, I am not satisfied that the operator had the authority to issue this PCN.

I note that the appellant gave additional grounds for appeal in their submission. As I have considered the lack of landowner authority for the site I will address the additional grounds.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

claxtome

Great news. Another successful POPLA appeal. :T:rotfl::j
Time to celebrate. :beer: