Euro Car Parks PCN - Read Newbies Setion

Mike313

Hello,

just another quick update. Despite my best efforts my POPLA was unsuccessful


Please see update below:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
******

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a 15 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that; The notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012; The operator has no authority to issue PCNs on the land; The signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.; The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for; The amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator has breached the BPA and ICO Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the appellant, as the registered keeper of the vehicle. PoFA 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge. 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;Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice; Display a valid ticket or permit clearly inside your windscreen or have a valid pay by phone session;. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant's vehicle, entering the car park at 19:05 and exited at 21:19, a total stay of 2 hours and 14 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the driver paid to park for one hour. Due to an unpaid period of one hour and 14 minutes, the PCN has been issued.


The appellant states that they do not believe the operator has the authority to pursue charges or form contracts at this car park. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators,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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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 this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a witness statement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Section 22.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event.

The appellant states that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and he says that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. He says that the amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded:;the £85 charge is not a penalty.

Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.

As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states:;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are;. Section 18.3 continues:;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;Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand;
In addition to this, I note that within the 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 independent assessment 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 is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable.

While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. While I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, 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'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 driver was afforded this opportunity. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, we do receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor's judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. When considering such appeals, POPLA must consider if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR's accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator's evidence pack. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant's explanation of events. But physical evidence, such as a receipt to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence or explanation as to why he feels the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. The appellant states that the operator has breached the BPA and ICO Code of Practice. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant's ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator directly. Ultimately, it is the motorists responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase sufficient parking time, 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.

Mike313

Hello again,

Can someone advise me whether or not I did something wrong to be unsuccessful with this?

Quentin

When a Popla appeal is rejected you are told why by the Popla adjudicator.

That looks to have happened????

Mike313

After following all the guidelines, I assumed it would be a pretty straightforward case, and it would have been successful, going of other similar appeals on this forum - which were successful.

Mike313

Based on the POPLA feedback, and looking around the forum, am I correct in thinking that I can still appeal at this stage?

If so, I am unsure as to how to go about this?
My OH thinks I am mad and should just pay the charge. But I begrudge paying £100 of my hard earned to these people.

Please could anyone advise me further?

Many thanks

KeithP

Having lost the PoPLA appeal, you have three options:

1) complain to PoPLA that there has been a procedural error such that the wrong conclusion has been reached, or

2) ignore all debt collectors letters that may now follow and post again on this thread if ever you receive a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence, or

3) pay up.


The second option is, in my opinion your best choice.

You can see your likelihood of court action here:
www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

...but they do have up to six years to start court action and their attitude to court might be different by then.

waamo

Unless POPLA have made a glaring error such as overlooking part of your evidence that's it.

Now sit back and ignore the threatening debt collectors letters that you will get. Only respond to a genuine Letter Before Claim or a genuine court claim. The odds of that happening are very, very slim indeed. See here http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

Despite what people think absent a successful court claim your credit rating will be unaffected and life will continue as normal. No baliffs knocking or anything like that. Just scary letters.

Mike313

If I decide to ignore them, what genuine letters should I be looking out for?

waamo

A letter titled "Letter Before Claim" or very similar wording. Possibly a court claim form. It's not a letter as such but a form.

Don't be fooled by letters saying you "may" be taken to court or it will be recommended you will be taken to court. Debt collectors like to imitate the real thing using weasel words.

All this, as it currently stands, is highly unlikely though.

KeithP

Both Waamo and I have said:

waamo wrote: »

Only respond to a genuine Letter Before Claim or a genuine court claim.

KeithP wrote: »

...post again on this thread if ever you receive a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence...