ECP POPLA Appeal Guidance

X1414

100% agree - glad you picked up on that also, I was thinking the same about the 'Sensor Controlled Car Park' section although there is absolutely no ANPR cameras, just solely wardens. I will ensure this is a point made in the appeal to POPLA - just struggling for points relating to my situation. Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Never seen that term before, unless they reckon they have those parking sensors on the ground under each and every bay that show whether a car moved/a bay has been freed up, or not?

Any little circles/sensors looking a bit like cats eyes, in the tarmac of the bays?

X1414

That would make sense - you are correct, they do have lights about the parking bays that show green as available etc. Did not realise they were called sensors.

Coupon-mad

From that they might be able to evidence that a car stayed parked for x hours.

Even so, no-one here pays ECP, even if you lose at POPLA, and it will be very interesting to see what evidence they actually show from these sensors.

X1414

Hello, I have now managed to generate a somewhat attempt at a POPLA appeal, is it too short? Should photographs be added that ECP included in their rejection? Should anything be added? Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
Euro Car Park PCN Number:

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 Limited – was submitted and acknowledged on [XXX] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [XXX]. 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) No Evidence of Landowner Authority
2) Signage
3) No Evidence of Period Parked
4) BPA Code of Practice – Non-Compliance to Guidelines

1) 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 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:

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.

2) Signage
- The 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
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 £90.00 charge, which is illegible in most photographs and only appears large at the entrance of the store, giving this is a three way busy junction, there is no time or access to stop and read this which in turn is not sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
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:

** LINK TO IMGUR **

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.
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, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). 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, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked at both the time observed and issue time 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. 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
3) No Evidence of Period Parked
- No ANPR system in use, only parking wardens in use of the site
The Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 refers at numerous time to the period of parking. Euro Car Parks are not able to definitely state the period of parking due to the alienation of an ANPR system. In the rejection of the initial appeal, Euro Car Parks supplied evidence of only one photograph showing the vehicle at the time of the ticket issue. It was mentioned that the parking wardens have the the use of a handheld terminal in which the vehicle registration is input at the observation time and again at the time of ticket issue. For this appeal, I put the operator to strict proof of both photographs – at the observation time and at the time of the ticket issue as this would show the vehicle was in different bays and had visited on two separate occasions. These photographs should be time and date stamped.
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record or evidence supplied to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed. The alleged overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for the period stated.



4) BPA Code of Practice – Non-Compliance to Guidelines
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 parking charge notice appeal rejection in question contains only one photograph of the vehicle and vehicle number plate. They do they clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite Euro Car Parks to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

Fruitcake

Your signage point is far too short. You should use all the template appeal points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES, including the very long inadequate signage point.
Embed pics rather than use links, then save everything to a pdf once the regulars have had a look at it. Embedded pics mean the assessor has to look at them.

X1414

Thank you for the response -

I did make that shorter for some reason, just felt like I was babbling although I am guessing that is the right way to go!!

I will amend that section with points from Post 3 on the NEWBIES section - I will also take the pictures from the links and insert them instead of linking them. Would it be worthwhile inserting the sign that ECP provided in their appeal rejection?

Umkomaas

Is your POPLA appeal relating to just one of the parking charges?

Did you appeal each charge individually to ECP?

X1414

Umkomass - Yes this is relating to just one of the parking charges although it will be used for all of them on the same basis.

Each charge was appealed individually and had the same generic looking rejection reason, same picture of the signage etc.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

No Evidence of Period Parked

This should be your first point because I have never seen a PPC try to provide 'sensor' evidence (this is new!) and I doubt they will be able to show it sufficiently to POPLA. If you say the car left and then returned later and there was no contravention, and put them to strict proof from their sensor records, that will be useful.

Even better if you can show where the car & driver was in between (Smart phone location?).

I would also add a section about ghost ticketing, the fact that no PCNs were found and it seems they have attempted this scam five times, and that it is 'rife' at that location (taking a photo of an empty PCN wallet then removing it to avoid confrontation, which is unprofessional, misleading and possibly fraudulent conduct).