Euro Car Parks Popla Appeal

Coupon-mad

Too long, POPLA won't read all that and you are best sticking to the 2000 characters the Portal allows, which mean bullet points & no repetition.

So maybe this if it fits in the Portal (I haven't counted the characters):

Landowner contract - XXX is not the landowner, as per their website where they state they are the head tenant for the Health Centre. Appendix A is just an extract and fails to show the definitions of the contract, site plan, or expiry date.

Signage - No entrance sign. No site plan provided, just old photos where any text re £85 fine is buried or missing. The large text is the only legible wording: 'Patient parking only; 2 hrs max stay' and patients will rightly rely on that offer. In most corners of the car park, and inside the Health Centre, nothing tells drivers to input their VRN. Not an obligation or contractual term if not 'bound to be seen'.

DPA - No response/excuse from ECP re the breach of the ICO CoP making their ANPR use unlawful. POPLA can't uphold a PCN that was not properly given and breaches BPA CoP (21.4): 'It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
- be registered with the ICO
- keep to the DPA
- follow DVLA requirements concerning the data
- follow the guidelines from the ICO on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras...'

POFA - A 'PCN' in the post, followed by a NTK, neither fulfils para 8 or para 9 of Schedule 4. Not properly given because the NTK arrives too late.

ECP's response is generic, calling me 'he' when it's clear from my name that I'm female. They continue to address the wrong person when they refer to xxxxx. This only serves to highlight their lack of attention and evidence to this case.

nick_968

Thats great thanks and much more to the point than my response - I mistook the 2000 characters for 200 words! Doh.

The only bit that does not quite track the sequence of events is that the postal PCN is also the NTK. As such I think it may be incorrect to say the NTK was late as they were one and the same?

Could I say:

POFA - A 'PCN' in the post also serving as an NTK, neither fulfils para 8 or para 9 of Schedule 4. Not properly given because the NTK arrives too late (no proof of postage provided). ECP are also wrong to state in their response that the keeper has to inform who the driver is.

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do, because I don't think that's the winning point anyway. Hopefully one of the other points will nail it.

If not then just ignore ECP anyway, they don't sue, and if POPLA is lost, no-one here pays.

nick_968

Unfortunately the POPLA appeal was unsuccessful but thanks for all the help. They completely ignored the Data Protection Act and I although I think the signage was poor and the fine was not clearly highlighted they did not agree. Decision below:

When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, !!!8220;Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £85 parking charge notice!!!8230;Authorised vehicles only patients must register their full and correct vehicle registration via the console!!!8221;. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle, entering the car park at 16:00, and exiting at 16:24, totalling a stay of 24 minutes. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed each ground as follows. She states that the signage is inadequate and contradictory. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. The British Parking Association!!!8217;s Code Of Practice states in section 18.3 !!!8220;Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8221; The operator has provided several images of the car park signs and I consider these signs are !!!8220;conspicuous!!!8221; and are !!!8220;easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;. Further, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site, I am satisfied that the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity. Similarly, while I note the sign does not advise where the console is placed, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate the console and ensure they have fully complied with the car park contract. Should a motorist be unable to meet the requirements of the car park, it is their responsibility to find alternative parking arrangements, in order to avoid incurring a PCN. She states there is no evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice states, !!!8220;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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.!!!8221; Further to this, section 7.3 states, !!!8220;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.!!!8221; The operator has provided a copy of the contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCNs on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. She states that the operator has failed to comply with the Data Protection Act (DPA). I acknowledge the appellants comments, however, POPLA!!!8217;s role is to consider if the operator has issued the PCN in line with the terms and conditions of the car park. It is not within our remit to comment on DPA issues. If the appellant has any concerns regarding this, she would need to contact the Information Commissioners Office directly. She states that the operator has not complied with the POFA. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle is, so I must consider the POFA, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of POFA and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I note that the appellant included several images of the car park signs as further evidence, however, I do not consider these to have made any impact on the appellants ability to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. Ultimately, it is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to authorise her vehicle for parking, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Never mind, usual generic rubbish decision, often happens now with ECP cases. No paying them!