PCN by Euro Car Parks

Coupon-mad

I already answered that in post #16.

The charge is £90 and you won't be paying anything. Please no more of this 'does the fine go up?' rubbish from any newbie - NO IT'S ALWAYS THE FULL AMOUNT.

So what, no-one here pays ECP - and they are unlikely to OWN the car park.

anar

Hello,

I wasn't asking about the price after all the process, because I already know that doesn't increase.
I was asking about the 14 days price after you first appeal to ECP. If they still say that you can pay the 50£ instead of the 90£.

denz1968

anar wrote: »

Hello,

I wasn't asking about the price after all the process, because I already know that doesn't increase.
I was asking about the 14 days price after you first appeal to ECP. If they still say that you can pay the 50£ instead of the 90£.

don't pay anything

waamo

anar wrote: »

Hello,

I wasn't asking about the price after all the process, because I already know that doesn't increase.
I was asking about the 14 days price after you first appeal to ECP. If they still say that you can pay the 50£ instead of the 90£.

If you attempt to pay you will find the "discount" somehow doesn't apply in your case. It happens time and time again.

So often the "discount" is referred to as mythical.

anar

Hello,

New update... I already received an answer from ECP and, of course, my appeal was rejected.

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

The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) – cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay. !!!61623; Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.

Any form of parking ticket or ‘notice’ is issued under the law ‘of trespass and Contract Law’. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.

I would respectfully remind that contract law applies in this instance. The car park is private property and signage on entrance and within the private car park the signage on site clearly set out the rules and regulations of the car park and tariffs.

With regards to the reference to “Pre-Estimate of Loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999.” Please be advised that the Supreme Court has made judgement (04/11/15) that clearly sets out the issue of parking charge notices on private land (law of contract applies) and in particular pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge notice is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest when the driver failed to adhere to the terms and conditions and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) does not alter the principle of driver liability. What it does do, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges when the landowner or their agent, the parking operator does not know who the driver was at the time. The creditor/operator must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve the benefits of keeper liability

Parking at the above site is limited to 180 minutes

On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked.

Your vehicle was parked longer than 180 minutes, therefore the notice was issued correctly and remains payable.

Please make payment of the discounted amount of £50.00 by visiting our website at https://www.eurocarparks.com or use the automated telephone service 0203 553 4559. Alternatively make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (to include a £2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.This amount is now due and the charge will be held for 14 days to allow time to make the payment. If payment is not received by this time the charge will increase to £90.00 and this may also result in the notice being passed to a third party with further charges applicable.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. You can make an appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) within 28 days online at https://www.popla.co.uk with the following reference number xxxxxxxxx. Alternatively, if you wish to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service by post a copy of the appeal application can be sent at your request. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate will be at an end. If you opt to pay the parking charge notice you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (https://www.ombudsmanservices.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above. Yours sincerely

Indeed, the signage saying that me.maximum stay is 3 hours is visible. The only way to fight against them is by claiming that there aren't pay machines to start longer than 3 hours in a park with so many stores. Also, the blue badge can be an argument as well, but don't know if allows to stay more than 3 hours for free.

Thanks

anar

Ohhh and the receipt from the store as well.

anar

Hello,

Do you think I still have any chance to defeat them?

Thanks,

KeithP

Why haven't you read and absorbed all the advice you have been given?

It's been said several times now:

There is absolutely no need to pay ECP anything.

Perhaps this will help your understanding:
http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

anar

Hello guys,

I did a draft of the appeal to POPLA, do you think you can give an advice about it?
I have some doubts, specially when it comes to the signage and ANPR, because in this car park they are quite visible (signage with white background and where you can read the maximum stay, how much is the fine and that the cameras are recording 24/7 and capture the plate number). Also, where says LINK, I copied for other appeal and I can't find the links.

Please, tell me what you think?

Thanks

POPLA Verification Code:
XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration:
XXXXXXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 03/07/2018, acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator - Euro Car Parks - was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 11/01/2018 and rejected via an email dated 19/07/2018.
I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
3. 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.
4. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
5. Proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park.
6. Euro Car Parks have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable.



1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

As a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

This is the only evidence supplied to me as keeper appellant by Euro Car Parks, an image purporting to be of a notice within the plot of land in question. The image is not date stamped or independently verified for its authenticity. Please note that there is no visible indication of the liability of any party, least of all the registered keeper of any vehicle.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015.

Understanding keeper liability
There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against 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.''


2. 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.


3. 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

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 Notice to Keeper does not contain any photographic or any other evidence in support of Euro Car Parks request for payment.

The image of a sign provided by Euro Car Parks in their rejection note of my appeal does not contain a date and time stamp, or specify the precise location of the sign. 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 when viewed from a vehicle or on foot from below or in poorly lit areas or times of the day. It should be noted with regard to the purported ‘Entry’ (14:31:20) and ‘Exit’ (18:45:10).
The image of the sign clearly does not accurately reflect the conditions at the time it is alleged to have been present nor does it state its location in relation to the vehicle in question. I should say that this was a very hot and sunny day and between the times provided by Euro Car Parks it was very difficult to read the signage from a vehicle or on foot from below. Also, the signage is located high in a pole which makes even more difficult to read clearly without approximation.
ATTACH IMAGE
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

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:
LINK

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 placed in the extremes of the car park, not being visibles from every point of the car park. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. 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 .40 font size going by this guide:
LINK

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

... And the same chart is reproduced here:
LINK

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

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

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. 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.


4. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) 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 CoP 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 Park's signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver 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. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside the car park.

It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.

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:

(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.

and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) 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 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent:

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.

Photo Evidence Open to Being Doctored
I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time and location) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge ECP to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.).


5. Proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park.

Euro Car Parks states that the maximum stay is 3 hours but as you can see on Google Maps, for example, we are talking about a shopping park where you can find a lot of stores (TK Max, Matalan, Asda, JD Sports, Carphone Warehouse, Shoes store, Halfords, Sainsbury's, Poundland, Intersport, Pets at Home, Puregym). It's obvious that 3 hours is far from being suitable for every customers, specially if they need to visit several stores in the same day/period to to shopping. It would be quite reasonable Euro Car Parks offers the possibility to every customers to pay to park for more than 3 hours which Euro Car Parks doesn't, because there are no any payment machines in the place, which don't give any choice to the customers.

In accordance to this, you can also find, in attachment, a receipt that proves that the main goal of the visit to Templars Shopping Park - Oxford was to do shopping. Other stores were visited and things were bought, but the final value was low so the receipts were not kept.


6. Euro Car Parks have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable.

The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

Euro Car Parks has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point.

anar

Hello,
Inyour opinions is the appeal godlike that or should I change anything?

Thbaks