Euro Car Parking POPLA

denz1968

Hi all


Just submitting a POPLA appeal as my appeal to ECP was rejected by them


Words to be used as below, could someone please advise if I have omitted anything or any changes needed. Hopefully I have followed the guidance






POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxx


Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxxxx


I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 26/04/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper.


My appeal to the Operator –Euro Car Parks –was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 29/04/2018 and rejected via an email dated 16/05/2018. 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:

• Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
• The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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 operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
• No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
• No Evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
• Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
• The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
• The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

• Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance
  The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
  BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
  “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”
  BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
  “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
  BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
  “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
  BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
  “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
  Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods and account for situations like above
  Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation ...:
  “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park.”
  “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
  “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
  So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes’ observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors (e.g. Christmas shopper queues) and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.'
  The Signage on entry to the Eastgate Louth Car Park (Figure 1) is not clear detailing the grace period, when the parking period begins and its parking charges, see signage as follows:
  
  Figure 1:Eastgate Louth entrance sign
• The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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
  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.
  Figure 2 below shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

Figure 2: Beavis sign


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 sparsely 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.


Euro Car Parks’ main car park sign on the Eastgate Car Park Louth site (the only one in the car park displaying terms and conditions) is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see Figure 1 above).


The section in red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 1) that is apparently an “Important Notice” is in tiny text that is impossible to read without a step ladder. It cannot be ignored – the wording used clearly states it is important and therefore urges the reader to fully read and understand. Why is something so important so small and illegible? Furthermore, red text on a yellow background is difficult to read in any lighting conditions.


Indeed, in relation to design principles, it is widely known that colour contrast plays a key role in terms of accessibility as it “affects some people’s ability to perceive information (in other words to be able to receive the information visually).”(Government Digital Service, 17 June 2016). Whilst this web page discusses design principles in relation to web design, the same points are true of print-based materials which would include signage.


Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:


“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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”


It cannot be reasonably assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park, nor parked near one.





Figures 3 & 4 show the car park entrance from the angle at which it would be approached in a vehicle from a 30mph road





Figure 3: Approach from the East





Figure 3: Approach from the West








The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs. Following further research, it is not disputed that Euro Car Parks entrance sign meets these requirements in terms of wording/layout–in fact it is almost a direct copy of the example the BPA provide. What is disputed are other requirements the BPA sets in Appendix B, specifically:

• The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead
  
  In disputing point 1 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead (it’s not even visible)
  It is therefore suggested once again that Figures 1,3 and 4 serve to reinforce the earlier point made regarding non-compliance 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”
  
  Figure 4: View down the car park
  
  Figure 5: View up the car park
  
  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, the signs in the Eastgate car park do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on all but one of the signs within the car park site). Large 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 02/06/16, 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. I put Euro Car Parks 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:


http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm


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


http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx





''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.''

• The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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.


Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant 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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.


The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 – they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.


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.''


No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:


''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

denz1968

And part 2 as the text was too long

• 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 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.


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: !!!858;!!!859;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.!!!859;!!!859;


7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

• The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.
• Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation.
• Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement.
• Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs?
• The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

5) No Evidence of Period Parked !!!8211; NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements


Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.


Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the !!!8220;period of parking!!!8221;.


Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:!!!8220;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;!!!8221;


Euro Car Parks!!!8217; NtK simply claims !!!8220;the vehicle was parked at Eastgate Louth Lincolnshire!!!8221;.


The NtK separately states that the vehicle !!!8220;entered Eastgate Louth at 16:00:57 and departed at 16:25:08 on 19/04/2018!!!8221;. At no stage do Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the !!!8220;period of parking to which the notice relates!!!8221;, as required by PoFA 2012.


Euro Car Parks NtK states !!!8220;we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay!!!8221;. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks to substitute !!!8220;entry/exit!!!8221; or !!!8220;length of stay!!!8221; in place of the POFA requirement - !!!8220;period of parking!!!8221; - and hold the keeper liable as a result.


By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks are not able to definitively state the period of parking.


I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.





6) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; non-compliance


The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:


"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."


The PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp !!!8220;on the photograph!!!8221; nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).


The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the images.


The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.


7) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate


The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.


The Notice to Keeper states :!!!8220;On 19/04/2018 the vehicle: DN13 GKD entered Eastgate - Louth, at 16:00:57 and departed at 16:25:08 on 19/042018.!!!8221;


These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Euro Car Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.


Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states ;!!!8220;Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.!!!8221;


Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.


I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.


As !!!8216;grace periods!!!8217; (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (24 minutes and 11 seconds apart), it is vital that ECP produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph


8) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.


The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.


Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.


Euro Car Parks!!!8217; signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.


The Euro Car Parks!!!8217; main sign in the Eastgate car park (see Figure 1) states:


!!!8220;We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry and exit at all times including bank holidays.!!!8221;


Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on Euro Car Parks!!!8217; sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states (see Figure 2):


!!!8220;This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue).!!!8221;


In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.


This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

• A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
• A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
  and paragraph 69:
  Contract terms that may have different meanings:

• If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
  Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made
  Misleading omissions: 6.-(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph
  (2)-
  (a) the commercial practice omits material information,
  (b) the commercial practice hides material information,
  (c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
  (d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
  It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.

Coupon-mad

7) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

Replace that old point, like this person did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74307172#Comment_74307172

HTH

denz1968

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Replace that old point, like this person did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74307172#Comment_74307172

HTH

Thanks Coupon Mad


Just updating to include that massive paragraph


There was however a sign there ref Data and ANPR but I guess it isn't sufficient


https://www.dropbox.com/s/vwagdmsmstkko0x/IMG_0413.jpg?dl=0

Coupon-mad

It (neither the signs nor the PCN) doesn't tell you about your right to subject access, and nor have they complied with the requirement to make regular assessments - before and during ANPR enforcement - to ensure ANPR images taken 24/7 is the most suitable and non-invasive method of data processing (which it isn't, of course).

denz1968

POPLA decision received


Verification Code

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Amy Butler

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has stated in their submission to POPLA that they have attached a PDF document to their appeal. POPLA are unable to view the PDF document, as such I will be making an assessment as to whether or not the PCN has been issued correctly.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states, !!!8220;Charges apply at all times; Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue); Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle!!!8221;. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle, DN13 GKD, entered the site on 19 April 2018 at 16:00 and exited the site at 16:25. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 25 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of the system print out. This is an online transaction record showing a search for the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle. From this, I can see that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was not registered against a payment. The appellant has stated in their submission to POPLA that they have attached a PDF document to their appeal. POPLA are unable to view the PDF document, as such I will be making an assessment as to whether or not the PCN has been issued correctly. Upon a review of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. Based on the photographic evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied that it is both clear and conspicuous that upon entry to the site the appellant would have been able to establish that there was signage and what the terms and conditions of the site are. 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 purchase the appropriate 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.






Got to say we are gutted

Computersaysno

Didn't POPLA notify you that they couldn't read your submission???


Or does POPLA refuse to accept PDFs??

Coupon-mad

You need to ask POPLA what was wrong with their system that your PDF was not read, because you have a copy and it's perfectly readable (see attached) and you are 100% sure you uploaded it. Say that you are aware from comments by POPLA in the public domain that the Portal was suffering technical issues in May/June, so what are they going to do about this?

As such, you wish to complain that POPLA has failed in its process and there is a whole PDF of appeal argument they failed to consider.

Attach the PDF to the appeal and say it is only fair that an INDEPENDENT appeals service considers all the evidence from both sides, and does not stay silent when their own Portal system was suffering issues, then ambush the appellant with a fait accompli. Clearly an appellant who refers to a PDF expects POPLA to read that PDF, and if they'd alerted you to their technical problems, you would have emailed the PDF earlier.

You have POPLA's email address already.

DO NOT say you 'disagree' or are disappointed with the decision. You need to state that POPLA has failed in its processes and has failed to consider evidence that was properly uploaded to their faulty system. You cannot get much more of a failure of procedure than this case.

I hope you know not to pay anyway? Even if you'd lost fair and square at POPLA, no-one PAYS ECP.

denz1968

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to ask POPLA what was wrong with their system that your PDF was not read, because you have a copy and it's perfectly readable (see attached) and you are 100% sure you uploaded it. Say that you are aware from comments by POPLA in the public domain that the Portal was suffering technical issues in May/June, so what are they going to do about this?

As such, you wish to complain that POPLA has failed in its process and there is a whole PDF of appeal argument they failed to consider.

Attach the PDF to the appeal and say it is only fair that an INDEPENDENT appeals service considers all the evidence from both sides, and does not stay silent when their own Portal system was suffering issues, then ambush the appellant with a fait accompli. Clearly an appellant who refers to a PDF expects POPLA to read that PDF, and if they'd alerted you to their technical problems, you would have emailed the PDF earlier.

You have POPLA's email address already.

DO NOT say you 'disagree' or are disappointed with the decision. You need to state that POPLA has failed in its processes and has failed to consider evidence that was properly uploaded to their faulty system. You cannot get much more of a failure of procedure than this case.

I hope you know not to pay anyway? Even if you'd lost fair and square at POPLA, no-one PAYS ECP.

Draft letter to POPLA




Dear Sirs





I am writing to complain about my recent POPLA appeal verification number xxxxxxxxx v Euro Car Parks. My complaint is regarding a shortfall in your service provided.


In the decision made by Amy Butler she quotes “The appellant has stated in their submission to POPLA that they have attached a PDF document to their appeal. POPLA are unable to view the PDF document, as such I will be making an assessment as to whether or not the PCN has been issued correctly”


I am aware from comments made by POPLA in the public domain you have had portal technical issues in May and June. I therefore wish to complain that POPLA has failed in it’s process as there is a PDF document of appeal arguments that you have failed to consider. The PDF file was submitted correctly on your portal and your system with its faults has caused it to be not readable to the assessor.


I would like my case to be put to an independent appeals service to consider the evidence from both sides. (see attached PDF file included with this complaint email.



Regards

divebud

Hi denz1968,

I was wondering how you got on with your appeal? I have issues with the same Louth carpark as the machine wouldn’t accept my money. I was speaking to another person earlier who had the same problem on the same day and has also got a PCN.
I’d be interested to hear how you got on please.

Thanks