ANPR Parking Notice - Euro Car Parks

fine27

Hi All,
Just have a few questions, I've already read the newbies thread but wanted to confirm the following things;
I've received a parking fine today from euro car parks. car was parked on15/01/18. Letter is dated at 22/01/2018 and I received it two days later on 24th.
1- As it is ANPR. It doesn't show any pictures of my car. All it shows is a black and white picture of number plate on entry and exit. Are euro car parks not supposed to send photographs of the car?
2- Should I wait until second letter arrives before appeal or shall I just go ahead and appeal it online?
I had a fine about 3 years ago from euro car parks which I managed carto cancel through popla appeal and now I'm stuck with another fine! Seems like they have fixed a lot of mistakes which are not visible on the letter this time. e.g. last time, I received a fine for £110 if it wasn't paid with in 14 days.
This letter shows £50 in 14 days otherwise £90 in 28 days...
I've got the appeal ready to send off from newby thread which has these three points

1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.

should I include anything else?

thanks

KeithP

Why would you want to wait for a second letter?

Send the blue appeal from the NEWBIES FAQ thread as it is.

Umkomaas

2- Should I wait until second letter arrives before appeal or shall I just go ahead and appeal it online?

Applicable for a windscreen ticket, but not an ANPR ticket. Get on with appealing it now.

Castle

And edit your first post to remove any indication as to whom the driver was.

fine27

Hi all,
Thankyou for all your replies. I've recived popla code and have got all this ready to send off. Could you please check if its all ok to go
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

4) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the operator or the landowner

5) Eurocarparks lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

6) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

7) ANPR Accuracy and Compliance!






1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)!!!8212; (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further !!!8216;If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.!!!8217;
It is my understanding that for an operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The Driver of the vehicle has not been identified (operator did not even reply when said they do not know who was driving., dated 22nd of Jan 2018) and the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012 (no windscreen ticket was issued), specifically the following passage:

!!!8220;2) The notice must !!!8211; f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given !!!8211; (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;!!!8221;

The Notice to Keeper that was received (Parking Charge Number 88881106007, dated 22/01/2018) omits such information. I have included in my POPLA submission the two pages of the notice which confirms that such text is absent. The only instruction in this regard is as follows:

!!!8220;Please be advised that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers name or current address, and if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them for payment.!!!8221;

Evidently, the operator has withheld from me (as the registered keeper) the required details of my liabilities in the event that the driver is not identified. This might be an omission on the part of the operator or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but regardless, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA 2012 (section 9).
As this operator has evidently failed to serve a compliant NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly elaborated.

2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

The signs were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of !!!8216;plain intelligible language!!!8217;, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

68 Requirement for transparency (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park.



In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
!!!8226; The operator has provided photographic evidence of one signage throughout the site. These photographs are shown in daylight only and so are not representative of the conditions prevalent at the time of the alleged incident, and should be disregarded. Signage pictures does not show what time and the date the picture was taken!
!!!8226; The operator has not stated if and where the vehicle was parked, only that the vehicle entered and left the car park. There is no evidence of what signage might be visible to the driver from their point of view, in the same lighting conditions, and thus no evidence that a contract for parking was accepted

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately.
For this appeal, I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself. I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement



4) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner

The demand for a payment of £90 as noted within the Parking Charge is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident.!

In this case Eurocarparks. has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £90 penalty charge was arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. Given that Eurocarparks. charge the same fixed charge to any alleged breach of contract (whether serious/damaging, or trifling in this case), and that the claimed £90, with 55% discount for prompt payment, is the maximum penalty allowed without prior justification to the BPA (section 19.5 & 19.6, BPA Code of Practice), it is clear that there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that Eurocarparks is exploiting section 19 of the BPA code of practice.Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:!
19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract

Based on the information offered it would suggest that the figure being demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate loss earning due to the fact that operational costs, such as the installing and the maintenance of equipment should not be included.


5) Eurocarparks lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that Eurocarparks. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Eurocarparks. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


5) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:!
18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.

Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Eurocarparks. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. When the driver arrived at the car park it was in the early hours of raining, foggy and therefore impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible.

As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.!In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and!'agreement on the charge'!existed. Here, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.!In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on the majority of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.!!

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.!

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:


''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and!want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.”

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':!
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact!'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'!about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

fine27

Based on these points, it is believed that Eurocarpark are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions, driver safety and ensuring the appropriate illumination of signs. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that Eurocarparks. be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.


In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Eurocarparks is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Eurocarparks


Yours faithfully,

KeithP

Your point 4) carries no weight since the Beavis case in 2015 and should be deleted.

Coupon-mad

4) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the operator or the landowner

Whoa you have ready some bad examples, or old threads. +1 to KeithP. DELETE #4.