Euro car parks fine -meters broke

karli281

Hi Again!

I have now received the evidence pack and have 7 days to make my comments - I am confused as to what comments I need to make.

I have read through the pack and have noticed a few errors - there are 32 pages in total.

Page 3, 4: case summary and rule/conditions:
states This site operates on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) in conjunction with various payment options- 2 machines or pay by phone/app/ text. Some drivers may opt to purchase a pay and display ticket at the various 4 pay and display machines and display their valid P&D ticket
It doesn't state clearly whether there are 4 pay and display machines or 2 but there are only 2
states Any notes left on the windscreen of the vehicle by the driver will not be seen or read as the car park is camera controlled. but information on signage says This car park is patrolled
states the parking charges but it is the wrong charges
states Euro Car Parks responded to Mrs ______ advising him that the car park is operated... it should be her

Page 11, 12: ECP response to POPLA appeal logged by Mrs________
states 2 machines but page 3 states 4 machines
pay by phone transaction report given but I asked for proof that machines were working

The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms but the £100 is not emphasised on signage, it is the same font size as the other information on the signage

page 29: Signage location plan and images of signage onsite
ECP provided a photo of the ticket machine from June 2017 (old photo) with the wrong charges on
Provided a photo of the signage with the wrong charges on
Provided another photo of the signage with the right charges on

They have provided a total of 18 photos

ECP have stated that I have admitted to being the driver in my first appeal to them therefore I have accepted liability.

What should I do now? What comments should I make?
Thanks for your help!

Coupon-mad

Make your comments SHORT, like here (see the difference when he reduced it to bullet points):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5753422

ECP have stated that I have admitted to being the driver in my first appeal to them therefore I have accepted liability.

If that's true just don't mention that aspect.

You have noticed some good points about the signage photos!

HTH

karli281

thanks coupon-mad for the quick reply and the link - very helpful.

Once I have drafted it up, i will post it here first.

Provided a photo of the signage with the wrong charges on
Provided another photo of the signage with the right charges on

Is it necessary to state that they have included a photo with the correct charges as well as a photograph included of the wrong charges?

Looking at the photographs that they have provided of the signage, I feel they are close up shots and a person of average height wouldn't see that clearly but I don't know if it's worth mentioning.

In my appeal I did state that the pay by phone sign is stuck on a lamp post and not right next to or above the ticket machine which would have made it more noticeable - do i mention this again?

Do you think my comments so far are strong enough or should I be looking for something else?

nosferatu1001

Yes, state that they have TWO photos with TWO DIFFERENT charges on them, indicating their evidence pack is flawed; accordingly the assessor must not place as much weight on the operators submissions - again, state the pack says there are 4 p and d, but there are only 2

You need to also comment on any appeal points you made, if any, that the operator either failed to comment on at all - meaning they ACCEPT that as being correct, and as such your appeal must be upheld - or their comment is wrong / nonsense / etc.

karli281

thanks nosferatu1001 for your advice. Much appreciated.

In my appeal I did state that the signage does not comply with the BPA’s requirement to tell drivers what they are using the data for that the ANPR cameras are capturing.
Specifically missing is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices

In the pack, they only put ECP do not operate CCTV on site -Is that their response to what I put above?

Here is my draft -
I would like to contest the information as the evidence that ECP have provided is flawed.

It is stated in the pack by ECP in the case summary:
• that there are 2 pay and display machines and then states that there are 4 pay and display machines in a separate sentence.
• that any notes left on the windscreen of the vehicle by the driver will not be seen or read as the car park is camera controlled but information on signage says This car park is patrolled
• parking charges but it is the wrong charges
• Euro Car Parks responded to Mrs ______ advising him... it should be her

ECP also state in the pack that:
• the signs are easy to see but the pay by phone option sign is not placed right above or next to the pay and display machine where it is easy to see but instead it is placed elsewhere
• the contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms but the £100 is not emphasised on the signage as it is the same font size as the other information on the signage and is hidden

Page 29: an old photo of the ticket machine from June 2017 with the wrong charges on which is not relevant
Page 30 and 31: 2 photos of the signage with DIFFERENT charges on

There is no evidence that this vehicle was parked close to a sign or that the driver would have seen the signage. The parking charge cannot be seen in some of the photographs provided (taken in perfect daylight conditions) apart from those where they are clearly close up shots and a person of average height wouldn’t see clearly.

Figure 3 shows the pay by phone transaction but I asked for evidence that the 2 pay and display machines was working at the point of the vehicle entering the car park which they have failed to comment and provide which shows they accept as being correct.

The number of mistakes in this pack must invalidate any information that ECP have provided and I believe my appeal should be upheld based on these serious points of error by ECP

Coupon-mad

I have now received the evidence pack and have 7 days to make my comments

Remember it's only open for 6 days really, as day 1 was the date the evidence was there/you were emailed.

[STRIKE]the contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms but the [/STRIKE]£100 is not emphasised on the signage as it is the same font size as the other information on the signage and is hidden

karli281

thanks Coupon-mad for your prompt reply.

the email sent to me says no later than wed 24th Jan so I'm hoping to submit it tomorrow at the latest.

I will amend.

Should I mention that the signage does not state clearly that the ANPR cameras state clearly that it will be used to issue parking charge notices? This was one of my appeal points.
In the pack they only state they do not operate CCTV on site so I'm uncertain whether they have commented on this??

karli281

Thanks for your help!
My appeal was successful

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided POPLA with a PDF document containing her grounds for appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant does not believe that the operator has met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The appellant does not believe that the operator has demonstrated who the driver of the vehicle was, and therefore who is liable for the charge • The appellant has requested that the operator provides proof that the payment machine was working on the date in question. • The appellant does not believe that the signage displayed on site makes it clear to motorists that the car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. • The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is insufficient, unclear and illegible. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). • The appellant does not believe that the operator has a legitimate interest in enforcing a PCN. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with links to relevant blogs, articles and websites.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In her grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has stated: “As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce a copy of the contract with the landowner”. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that “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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to the appellant’s claims, the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner. However, it is not clear how long the contract is valid for. I can see it was signed on 12 September 2016. If, for example, the contract was valid for 12 months, then it would not have been valid on the date of the appellant’s parking session on 30 October 2017. Ultimately, I am not satisfied that the operator has demonstrated its compliance with Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, nor has it adequately rebutted the appellant’s claims to my satisfaction. For clarity, I acknowledge the reason the operator issued the appellant with a PCN. However, it is the operator’s responsibility to rebut the appellant’s claims in order to prove that it issued the PCN correctly. On this occasion, the operator has failed to do so. I conclude that the operator issued this PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has provided evidence and raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.