Euro Car Parks Popla Appeal

nick_968

So after having a quick look through some previous responses and also a bit of research.....

1. They have done nothing to address the main points raised in the signage arguments. Although they show lots of sign locations in the ariel view there are still blackspots and their own photos of the signs taken from the car park just confirm how hard it is to read the small print which is where the £85 fine is buried. They have not responded to any of the case law points.

2. They claim they are in accordance with POFA - I am not expert enough to judge this - I guess it is better left to POPLA to give a verdict on this?

3. They have not done anything to address the Data Protection Act issues raised as far as I can tell. They are obviously not up to speed on this one as it does not form part of their generic response!

4. They have provided an 'Appendix A' which appears to be part of a larger agreement in which they show what appears to be landowner authority. However when you check on the company who is party to this agreement they are actually the 'head tenant' according to that companies own website. As such I assume this would fail?

5. Their response is a generic cut and past covering arguments I have not even raised such as grace period and pre estimate of loss/ unfair terms - with another name in that part of the response - not ours. Not sure how well this will go down or if I should home in on this?

I still think the signage argument is a good one as the charge is buried further down the wording and is not obvious or in the largest font - it is in the smallest font. Still subjective though

The landholder authority seems like a good one though if a head tenant does not count as the landholder?

KeithP

nick_968 wrote: »

2. They claim they are in accordance with POFA - I am not expert enough to judge this - I guess it is better left to POPLA to give a verdict on this?

Not a wise decision. If you do not challenge that then PoPLA will see that you are not disputing the PPC's assertion - in other words you are agreeing the PPC.

Please re-read post #14.

nick_968

KeithP wrote: »

Not a wise decision. If you do not challenge that then PoPLA will see that you are not disputing the PPC's assertion - in other words you are agreeing the PPC.

Please re-read post #14.

I did review the NTK in line with the schedule as per your previous post and I could not see anything obvious that they had missed.....I would love to get them on that obviously but nothing stood out.

KeithP

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that PoPLA's verdict won't be based on whether or not the NtK complied with POFA.

PoPLA's decision will be based on, effectively, whoever shouts loudest.

In other words, if you don't object, then the PPC wins the point.

However, I do understand what you are saying.

nick_968

It looks compliant however based on your advice I will make some noise but be a bit more general so they have to look right into it.

Any ideas on the other points raised and vice versa given my point on the data protection act and the fact that they do not appear to have addressed that could that also be an easy win for me there?

Umkomaas

Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper's responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given.

Totally incorrect assertion.

nick_968

Umkomaas wrote: »

Totally incorrect assertion.

What would be the correct point to put against that?

Umkomaas

nick_968 wrote: »

What would be the correct point to put against that?

Check it out in Schedule 4 of PoFA. The more you understand the issues surrounding your case, the better you will be able to defend it.

This is a self help forum, not 'Ask a question, get an answer, then ask another, then another', yet still not understand the issue. It does need work to get a grip of this stuff - it's your £100 at stake.

nick_968

Umkomaas wrote: »

Check it out in Schedule 4 of PoFA. The more you understand the issues surrounding your case, the better you will be able to defend it.

This is a self help forum, not 'Ask a question, get an answer, then ask another, then another', yet still not understand the issue. It does need work to get a grip of this stuff - it's your £100 at stake.

Point taken. I realise this is a self help forum but its not all straight forward and I have read Schedule 4 more than once and its not that clear to me. None the less I have tried to summarise what I think is the correct point.

nick_968

Draft response:

Landowner Authority

The contract extract provided has not been signed by the landowner, but rather a managing agent of the site. XXX is the head tenant not the landowner and this is backed up by their own website where they clearly state they are the head tenant for the XXX Health Centre site. As such they are not the landowner and cannot act as if they are. No further evidence has been submitted to confirm that this managing agent or Euro Car Parks has the authority to act on the behalf of the landowner, especially with regards to entering into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies.

Furthemore the document provided (appendix A) is not a full contract just an extract. As such it is not clear how it relates to any other relationships with the landowner and any authority required by statute or otherwise. I maintain that Euro Car Parks do not have landholder authority and as such the parking charge has not been issued in accordance with POFA.

Signage

ECP have done nothing to respond to any of the specific points raised in my appeal in relation to the signage and instead have provided a generic response. They have not shown that they meet the requirements established in the Beavis case as detailed in my appeal. Apart from the close up photo they provide which is not relevant as nobody would stand this close to a sign = their own photos clearly demonstrate it is not possible to read the small print where the parking charge is detailed from any reasonable distance. As they have failed to respond to any of the specific points I have raised in my appeal text I would respectfully refer back to these points as they still stand.

In addition and also as per my original appeal I would like to reiterate that it is clear that the main message in bold is the only thing any first time visitor parking here would take from the signage if they were even parked close enough to one of the signs. This would be !!!8216;Patient parking only 2 hours maximum stay!!!8217;. As such the signage remains contradictory and confusing and as per my appeal document I put it to ECP that a high percentage of first time visitors are at risk of an unfair parking charge due to their misleading signage. These signs also do not exist at the entrance to the car park. There is no mention of the parking charge on the signs that face you when entering the car park. Only after receiving a parking charge would they realise the mistake they had made and Euro Car Parks are not allowing any grace around a first offence for genuine visitors to the clinic. Given the poor quality signage this is most unfair as the system of registering your vehicle via the console is most confusing if you are not familiar with it and not something you would normally come across. The signage only makes this worse.

Data Protection Act

ECP have not responded to my argument that relates to the data protection act. As such my original points made in my appeal stand.

Compliance with POFA re Notice to Keeper

I do not believe the NTK is compliant with POFA Schedule 4. ECP state in their response:

!!!8216;Please be advised that it is the registered keepers responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given!!!8217;

Schedule 4 does not require the registered keeper to inform of the full name and address of the driver its purpose is to make the keeper aware that if they do not provide the name of the driver then they may be liable to the creditor for the amount of the parking charge if in fact such charge was issued correctly.

General

In addition to the above it is also clear that Euro Car Parks have not paid attention to any of my specific points raised in the appeal and they address me in the wrong gender where they state !!!8216;he!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8221; in line xxx of their response whereas in fact it should be clear from my name that I am a female. They continue to address the wrong person when they refer to xxxxx. This only serves to highlight the lack of effort in responding to the specific points raised and calls into question whether they are really interested in addressing their specific failures or whether they are content to continue to operate against the code of practice they have signed up to.