ECP POPLA Appeal Guidance

KeithP

X1414 wrote: »

Would it be worthwhile inserting the sign that ECP provided in their appeal rejection?

Yes with an explanation about how the £90 PARKING CHARGE text lacks prominence when compared to the Beavis sign. I would also mention the lines of very very small print at the bottom of that sign.

X1414

Thank you for the responses this evening, it has helped me out a lot. Coupon-Mad, your comments were taken and I have placed the part about ghost ticketing and sensor evidence in the No Evidence of Period Parked section - great advice!. KeithP, I have added the image etc and comments into the signage part to make it stand out more. I have placed the updated version below and if someone could review, it would be appreciated. Links/Images have been taken out although will be on there when I save it as a PDF.

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 !!!8211; Euro Car Parks Limited !!!8211; 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 !!!8211; 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 which is a busy 3 way junction - 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:

*IMAGE OF TWEET*

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.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

*IMAGE OF BEAVIS SIGN*

(Beavis Case Sign)

*IMAGE OF ECP SIGN*

(Sign Provided by Euro Car Parks in Appeal Rejection)

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. The lettering is simply shown in such small print.

Here, the signs are sporadically 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.

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 - 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 2.6.16, 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 the operator 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 .25 font size going by this guide:

*link to font size*

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

*link to visibility chart*

''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.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

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 v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' 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:

**link to case**

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 at both the observation time and the ticket 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 !!!8211; 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.
As there is a complete lack of ANPR evidence - and due to the vehicle leaving and returning to the site complying to the no return within 2 hours terms and conditions I request Euro Car Parks to supply evidence from this !!!8216;sensor-controlled car park!!!8217; of the whereabouts of the vehicle.
I also question ghost ticketing at this location which is unprofessional, misleading and possibly fraudulent conduct. The image provided in the evidence by Euro Car Parks shows the window ticket on the back window of the vehicle although this was not located by the driver on return to the vehicle so it is suspected that it was placed there, an image was then taken of the vehicle and then it was removed !!!8211; image provided below.

*image of ticket on back window provided by ECP*

(Image Provided by Euro Car Parks in Appeal Rejection)

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 !!!8216;parked!!!8217; for the period stated.
4) BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; 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.

Umkomaas

Euro Car Parks are not able to definitely state the period of parking due to the alienation of an ANPR system.

Not clear to me what you're trying to say here.

only parking wardens in use of the site

'at' or 'on'?

evidence from this sensor-controlled car park

But having said 'only parking wardens ....', you touch on the 'sensor-controlled' nature of the car park in little more than a 'throwaway' line. I would expand on this. I'd guess the POPLA assessor would know little or anything about sensors in car parks, so I wouldn't take for chance that your one small reference will spark any recognition in the assessor. Add to that, ECP is unlikely to have had to previously explain to POPLA how the sensor operates, how it's monitored, how accurate it is, what audit/monitoring/approval of the system has been given by the BPA (and maybe even the DVLA), how sensor and parking goon interact - and having to explain all this in their evidence pack to POPLA might be too much of a job for them, and they might just throw their cards in.

Sensor-control is such a relatively new phenomenon, I'd absolutely go to town on the issues I've thrown in above (they are by no means exhaustive) by making this a major appeal angle.

!!!8211;

Your text is riddled with the above (and similar). It is caused (in part) by using an iOS device with Smart Punctuation switched to 'On'. If you switch it off, it will get rid of this effect on any punctuation you insert (it doesn't, however, remove them from any copy and pastes which include others' punctuation, which need to be edited manually).

Go to 'Settings' > 'General' > 'Keyboard' > 'Smart Punctuation' and flick the switch off.

Switching off seems to have no detrimental affect on any other use of the keyboard.

HTH

Coupon-mad

Sensor-control is such a relatively new phenomenon, I'd absolutely go to town on the issues I've thrown in above (they are by no means exhaustive) by making this a major appeal angle.

Yes, should be the first point, not buried in #3.

If the sensors were working then they will have a full record of (unidentified) vehicle comings and goings that day, and you must ask ECP to produce for POPLA, that complete record, from that bay.

X1414

I have taken the comments from both of you and amended the appeal again - understanding the reasoning to take one point and push them on it. I have shown the amendments below, and once again, would appreciate if it could be skimmed over for any changes to be made. I have 4 days left for all appeals to be in so luckily coming to the final output with your help. One question, how should it be signed off? I have read quite a few and notice that it is marked off with 'END' is this the thing to do?

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 !!!8211; Euro Car Parks Limited !!!8211; 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 Period Parked
2) Signage
3) BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; Non-Compliance to Guidelines
4) No Evidence of Landowner Authority

1) No Evidence of Period Parked
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. 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 use of a handheld terminal in which the vehicle registration is input at the observation time and again at the time of ticket issue, in turn informing them of an overstay. For this appeal, I put the operator to strict proof of both photographs !!!8211; 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.

As there is a complete lack of ANPR evidence as this site does not use this - and due to the vehicle leaving and returning to the site complying to the no return within 2 hours terms and conditions I request Euro Car Parks to supply evidence from this !!!8216;sensor-controlled car park!!!8217; of the whereabouts of the vehicle. If the sensors were working and in use on the day of the ticket issue then Euro Car Parks should have a full record of the vehicles comings and goings and should produce evidence for POPLA for that complete record, from that bay. I would also like an explanation to be given from Euro Car Parks to POPLA in respect of how the sensor operates such as how this is monitored, how accurate it is and what audit/monitoring/approval of the system has been given by the BPA and even the DVLA.
I also question ghost ticketing at this location which is unprofessional, misleading and possibly fraudulent conduct. The image provided in the evidence by Euro Car Parks shows the window ticket on the back window of the vehicle although this was not located by the driver on return to the vehicle so it is suspected that it was placed there, an image was then taken of the vehicle and then it was removed !!!8211; image provided below.

*IMAGE OF WINDOW TICKET ON BACK OF VEHICLE*

(Image Provided by Euro Car Parks in Appeal Rejection)

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 !!!8216;parked!!!8217; for the period stated.

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 which is a busy 3 way junction - 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:

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.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

*IMAGE OF BEAVIS CASE SIGN*

(Beavis Case Sign)

(Sign Provided by Euro Car Parks in Appeal Rejection)

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. The lettering is simply shown in such small print.

Here, the signs are sporadically 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.

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 - 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 2.6.16, 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 the operator 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 .25 font size going by this guide:

*LINK TO FONT SIZE*

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

**LINK TO LETTER HEIGHT DISCUSSION*

''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.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

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 v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' 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:

**LINK TO CASE LAW**

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 at both the observation time and the ticket 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) BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; 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.

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 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.

X1414

Umkomaas - I am using Microsoft Word on a Windows Laptop - I followed steps from online to disable smart quotes although I notice it has still not worked in the above post - apologies for this. I will look further into it, hopefully sense can be made of it.

Coupon-mad

It doesn't need anything but I always put 'END' because my POPLA appeals are always pages long and I like to make it clear I have stopped!

I also page-number it, and add a header or footer with the POPLA code in it, so it is repeated on every page.

I think I would start the first point like this because IMHO, you are not making it clear what you are saying:

The Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period, but it was not. The vehicle was moved in the morning, did not contravene the max stay time, and returned much later - which may have been to the same bay (unsure because the driver often visits twice a day and only sometimes happens to find the same bay). The operator is put to strict proof of continuous parking by this car, in that bay, which is denied.

I don't get why you are asking for photos? Thy have SENSORS so why put them only to proof of photos?

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.

You haven't explained the sensors and what you require as evidence, I said:

If the sensors were working then they will have a full record of (unidentified) vehicle comings and goings that day, and you must ask ECP to produce for POPLA, that complete record, from that bay.

X1414

!!!8220;
The Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period, but it was not. The vehicle was moved in the morning, did not contravene the max stay time, and returned much later - which may have been to the same bay (unsure because the driver often visits twice a day and only sometimes happens to find the same bay). The operator is put to strict proof of continuous parking by this car, in that bay, which is denied.

Thank you, I agree and it makes it much clearer - I have made the amendment.

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.

To be honest, I felt like if they couldn't provide both photographs at the observation time and ticket issue time it would be a good thing for myself - I am aware this isn't the case now so will remove that.

You haven't explained the sensors and what you require as evidence, I said:

If the sensors were working and in use on the day of the ticket issue then Euro Car Parks should have a full record of the vehicles comings and goings and should produce evidence for POPLA for that complete record, from that bay. I would also like an explanation to be given from Euro Car Parks to POPLA in respect of how the sensor operates such as how this is monitored, how accurate it is and what audit/monitoring/approval of the system has been given by the BPA and even the DVLA. - This was the section that I included, I may not be completely understanding the meaning but I thought I covered what you advised?

Coupon-mad

To be honest, I felt like if they couldn't provide both photographs at the observation time and ticket issue time it would be a good thing for myself - I am aware this isn't the case now so will remove that.

No, I was not saying to REMOVE it. I am saying require BOTH proof of the photos and proof from the sensor records for that bay all day, that cars did not come and go in between.

X1414 wrote: »

If the sensors were working and in use on the day of the ticket issue then Euro Car Parks should have a full record of the vehicles comings and goings and should produce evidence for POPLA for that complete record, from that bay. I would also like an explanation to be given from Euro Car Parks to POPLA in respect of how the sensor operates such as how this is monitored, how accurate it is and what audit/monitoring/approval of the system has been given by the BPA and even the DVLA.

- This was the section that I included, I may not be completely understanding the meaning but I thought I covered what you advised?

I literally could not find that - and I still can't - where is it?

X1414

No, I was not saying to REMOVE it. I am saying require BOTH proof of the photos and proof from the sensor records for that bay all day, that cars did not come and go in between.

I have removed it as you made me realise I had already requested both photographs in the No Evidence Parked Section - so it was just asking again! Pointless!

I literally could not find that - and I still can't - where is it?

It was in my last post with the updated POPLA appeal but I have just copied the No Evidence Parked Section and it can be seen below as this is the only section amended (as well as removing the duplicate request of both photos from the signage section) -

1) No Evidence of Period Parked
The Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period, but it was not. The vehicle was parked and then moved in the morning, did not contravene the maximum stay time and returned much later !!!8211; which may or may not have been to the same bay (unsure because the driver often visits twice in one day and only sometimes happens to find the same bay). Euro Car Parks are put to strict proof of continuous parking by this car, in that bay, which is denied. 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. 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 use of a handheld terminal in which the vehicle registration is input at the observation time and again at the time of ticket issue, in turn informing them of an overstay. For this appeal, I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof of both photographs !!!8211; at the observation time and at the time of the ticket issue. These photographs should be time and date stamped.

As there is a complete lack of ANPR evidence as this site does not use this - and due to the vehicle leaving and returning to the site complying to the no return within 2 hours terms and conditions I request Euro Car Parks to supply evidence from this !!!8216;sensor-controlled car park!!!8217; of the whereabouts of the vehicle. If the sensors were working and in use on the day of the ticket issue then Euro Car Parks should have a full record of the vehicles comings and goings and should produce evidence for POPLA for that complete record, from that bay. I would also like an explanation to be given from Euro Car Parks to POPLA in respect of how the sensor operates such as how this is monitored, how accurate it is and what audit/monitoring/approval of the system has been given by the BPA and even the DVLA.

I also question ghost ticketing at this location which is unprofessional, misleading and possibly fraudulent conduct. The image provided in the evidence by Euro Car Parks shows the window ticket on the back window of the vehicle although this was not located by the driver on return to the vehicle so it is suspected that it was placed there, an image was then taken of the vehicle and then it was removed !!!8211; image provided below.

*Image of Vehicle with Window Ticket on the back*

(Image Provided by Euro Car Parks in Appeal Rejection)

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 !!!8216;parked!!!8217; for the period stated.