Euro Car Parks - Parking Charge

Jeffy23

Hello all,


The Keeper received a Parking Charge Notice for the driver overstaying at a BP garage. The garage is located just by the South Terminal of Gatwick airport.


The Driver allegedly stayed roughly 55 minutes.

The garage states 30 minutes is the maximum stay.


The charge is the usual £100, or £60 if paid within 14 days.


Attached are both sides of the letter at the bottom of the thread.


A google search for the garage has provided an image of the garage attached below.


From the picture a sign by the entrance (top left) can be seen, although by a double yellow line, so stopping to read would be impossible.


===

Is this the correct procedure?
- I appeal to Euro Car directly. They always will reject the appeal?
- I then appeal to POPLA and hopefully Charge gets cancelled?



Please advise which template to use


1). Argue there case is flawed based on:



1. SIGNAGE
2. BPA CODE OF PRACTICE,NON COMPLIANCE TO GUIDELINES
3. THE OPERATOR HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IT IS PURSUING IS IN FACT THE DRIVER WHO MAY HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY LIABLE FOR THE CHARGE.
4. LAND OWNER AUTHORITY
5. OBSERVATION POINTS
6. GRACE PERIOD
7. THE ANPR SYSTEM IS NEITHER RELIABLE NOR ACCURATE.


2). Challenge them with


I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,


Which ones should be used please?

Please help so a letter can be drafted asap. Thank you

Attached are images:


Garage

imgur.com/a/VPRCTgK


Front Letter

i.imgur.com/InOLUXA.jpg


Back Letter

i.imgur.com/FTwjbux.jpg

Redx

first task it to edit your post and remove any hint of who did what

what happened on the day happened to the DRIVER

what happened SINCE that day happened to the KEEPER

the words "ME , MYSELF & I" do not exist in this topic, so dont use them

then read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and decide if you are appealing it or not

there is only ONE template, so no choice to make, use it verbatim, no changes , appealing as KEEPER

Jeffy23

Thank you so much.


The main thread had been edited.


Should a receipt be attached showing food was purchased from the garage?


How would that be included in the template?

Coupon-mad

Where the template is, the NEWBIES thread also tells you to also upload any evidence like a receipt or Blue Badge...not sure why you need that re-stated?

Obviously what you DO NOT DO is add words like 'my receipt'!

ECP have a daft little appeals webpage where you can bung wording in, plus your details as keeper, plus upload an attachment. Easy enough, a simple stage to get your POPLA code.

Jeffy23

Right apologies, I didn't see the bit just under the template.


The site is terrible all uploads fail. Just the standard template was used.

Coupon-mad

No worries, it's just a stepping stone to POPLA.

Start searching for 'Euro POPLA ANPR appeal' or similar keywords and change the default search to 'show posts' (NEVER 'show threads' or you will never see the wood for the trees).

Jeffy23

They finally replied. Obviously a rejection. Here is their response.

"Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

The above stated car park is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system !!!8211; cameras capture images of every vehicle upon entry and exit of the car park and then calculate the length of their stay.

Signage is clear and drivers are subject to a maximum stay to ensure that the free parking is not abused. When parking on private land it is the responsibility of the driver to look for signage and to ensure that their vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions as stated.
Please see the attached image of the signage on site that clearly states failure to comply with the car park regulations will result in the issue of a parking charge notice. It is clear from your communication that you did not read the signage at this site, which is your responsibility as the driver. Therefore I can confirm that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly and will remain payable.

Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper!!!8217;s responsibility to inform of the full name and UK Serviceable address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8216;the Act!!!8217;), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.

If you were not the driver please provide the full details of the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking charge notice was issued (full name and UK serviceable address).

Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we will pursue you for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid. Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid.

The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. This signage quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a parking charge notice (PCN) will be issued.

On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).

Please be advised that there are a number of signs around the car park indicating the restrictions of the site and it is the responsibility of the driver to read them when parking.

We note that in your letter you state that the parking charge notice (PCN) is not enforceable as you have currently not entered into a !!!8216;contract!!!8217; with Euro Car Parks. By parking in our ECP car park in BP Connect Gatwick South Terminal you have entered into a contract with ECP and have consented to comply with the terms and conditions set out on the signs in that car park which are clearly visible wherever you park.

The car park contains signs within the car park setting out our terms and conditions. All drivers therefore have the opportunity to review the terms and conditions prior to entering into the contract with ECP by paying for a ticket.

The terms and conditions are clearly incorporated into the contract. If a driver elects not to review the terms and conditions on the signage, this does not mean that the terms and conditions are not incorporated. The parking charge notice (PCN) which has been issued is therefore lawfully binding under the contract you have with ECP and we require payment within ten days.

Please make payment of the discounted amount of £60.00 by visiting our website at ... or use the automated telephone service 0203 553 4559. Alternatively make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (to include a £2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.This amount is now due and the charge will be held for 14 days to allow time to make the payment. If payment is not received by this time the charge will increase to £100.00 and this may also result in the notice being passed to a third party with further charges applicable.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

You can make an appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) within 28 days online at ... with the following reference number xxx. Alternatively, if you wish to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service by post a copy of the appeal application can be sent at your request. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate will be at an end. If you opt to pay the parking charge notice you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services ... provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.

However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

Yours sincerely"

How do I proceed from here?

They claim the contract is binding and their is sufficient signage displayed.

3 pictures were attached. One of my car entering and one of leaving. Another of the alleged sign they have at front.

nosferatu1001

What did post 6 tell you to do, two weeks ago?

Fruitcake

DELETE YOUR PoPLA NUMBER FROM THAT POST NOW!

Bad people could use it too ensure you lose!

Then construct your draft PoPLA appeal and post it here for checking before you submit it.

Coupon-mad

How do I proceed from here?

Read post #6 and do what as suggested ages ago.

REMOVE THE POPLA CODE FROM THAT POST - NOW - DELETE IT.

We do not need to see a boring template rejection letter.

Jeffy23

Thank you for all your responses. Here is a draft letter.


Do you recommend any changes?


My main concern is I do not have any good photos.



======

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX


Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX


I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxx acting as a
notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Euro Car Parks – was submitted
electronically via the operator’s website on xxx. An acknowledgement email was
received on the same day, followed by a rejection letter dated 01/03/2018.


I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to
appeal against it on the following grounds:


1. The entrance signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces,
especially in relation to the sum of the parking charge itself.


2. NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements – no POFA-compliant keeper liability
warning


3. Given the NTK is non-compliant with POFA 2012 Schedule 4, the operator has not
shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable
for the charge


4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority -the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


1 The entrance signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
spaces, especially in relation to the sum of the parking charge itself.


There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that
the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge
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. 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 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.


imgur/PqCSKqB.jpg

Figure 1: close up of the parking sign


imgur/rWxw2jx.jpg


Figure 2: the BP garage with the yellow parking sign on the left underneath another white sign.



Figure 1 above shows a close up of the main car park sign.



Figure 2 shows the sign is by a double yellow line. It would be impossible for the driver to stop and read the sign. Figure 2 also shows the


Figure 1-2 clearly show that UKPC signage does not comply with the BPA Code of
Practice (18.3), specifically: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in
intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.
The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs. The
following requirements, set out in Appendix B, are disputed:


- The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing
to look away from the road ahead.
- Signs should be readable and understandable at all times,including during the
hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place
at those times. Thiscan be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting
or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or
indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of are tro-reflective material
similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.
In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not
readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead, nor is it
readable and understandable at all times.


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 vs London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000]
EWCACiv106’ about a driver not seeing the terms and, consequently, she was NOT
deemed bound by them. This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and
supports my argument, not the operator's case:
xxx
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. So, for this appeal, 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),
in the same lighting conditions. 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.


In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it
discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking
charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge.
POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:


''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a)
the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements
prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes
of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or
more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)
are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the
relevant land''.


Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a
reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the
signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular
site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012,
I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum,
which is illegible in my photographs - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e.
the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist 2 NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements no POFA-– compliant keeper liability warning.


The NtK fails to comply with PoFA 2012 requirements for adequate warning of keeper

liability. Paragraph 8 of schedule 4 PoFA 2012 details the requirements that must be met
with regards to ‘a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes
of paragraph 6(1)(a)’. Most notably, paragraph 8(2)(f) requires the NtK to:
“warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day
after that on which the notice to keeper is given-


- (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (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, ” This is in clear conflict with the UKPC NtK, which chooses to set its own conditions as follows:
“If, after a period of 42 days, (beginning with the day after this Notice is given), the
amount requested in this Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed
of the driver's name and current address) the charge will be passed to our debt recovery
team, and a further charge of £60 will be incurred.”
In my view, this wording does not establish the correct conditions for keeper liability as
presented above, and hence renders the NtK non-compliant.


3 Given the NtK is non-compliant with POFA 2012 Schedule 4, the operator
has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was
liable for the charge


In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must
first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is,
based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever.
A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the
driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I
can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. In
this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the
keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission
regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by
POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a
keeper without a valid NTK. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to
name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or
complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made
and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains
I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of
who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The
burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally
not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for
their parking charge. They cannot.


Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking
law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain
conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges
from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the
registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of
the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name
the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the
driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where
details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police,
pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice
has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not
complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper
of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the
POFA.


4 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
POPLAbut 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 Code of Practice) 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 Code of Practice 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.