PCN by Euro Car Parks

anar

Hello, guys!

Please, can someone help with this?
I need to send the appeal but i would like to have your advice about the draft I wrote.

Thanks

anar

Please, I really need someone to advise me.
Can you guys say if I can send the POPLA appeal like this???

Thanks,

nosferatu1001

Seriously
Posting
So
Often

No one cares about ecp. You'll likely win at popla however if you don't, so What?
This forum isn't going to review your template popla appeal. Not in detail. Did you update it to make sure it is entirely considentent with your ticket? If so, good to go.

waamo

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Seriously
Posting
So
Often

No one cares about ecp. You'll likely win at popla however if you don't, so What?
This forum isn't going to review your template popla appeal. Not in detail. Did you update it to make sure it is entirely considentent with your ticket? If so, good to go.

Agreed. Send it.

anar

Hello,

After a few weeks, finally POPLA replied to my appeal asking for comments to ECP evidence.
I was reading the Newbies thread but I'm not still quite sure about what I should say at this point.
Basically ECP sent the contract with Savills which as the signature of both companies. They also send a lot of images showing the signage and the park plant.
They also calculate the time the car was there, but at a certain point they say 3h50 and then 4h13. Well, the limit to park for free is 180 minutes anyway.
Can u help me, please?

Thanks,

KeithP

Stick ECP POPLA comments into the forum search facility and find out exactly how others have succeeded with that.

I've just read two threads from July which will help you using that search argument.

Also look again at post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and read the few paragraphs following:

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

Coupon-mad

but at a certain point they say 3h50 and then 4h13. Well, the limit to park for free is 180 minutes anyway.

Use that to suggest their evidence is unreliable.

Add that the signage photos are (undated? old dates? not evidenced from the actual day? not evidenced to be from that actual location, even?).

Add that they have provided no aerial photo (if I am right?) so it cannot be concluded that a sign was visible, or that the entire site has prominent and multiple signs everywhere.

Add that the contract does not give an expiry date (if true) and as such, doesn't show that the contract was active at the time, and it cannot be assumed without evidence of same, to continue into perpetuity.

If you lose at POPLA, no biggie - NO PAYING! You would just come back and tell us, and 'advanced search' the forum (not the whole of MSE!) for the keywords POPLA lost Euro, and read about the other people happily ignoring these idiots after trying POPLA.

No worries here, give the above a go and who cares - a win is nice though!

anar

Hi,

Thanks both of you!
Couponmad unfortunately in the image they sent me there is a start and expire date for the contract.
About the image of the park plant it's aerial. But the images are old, some of them from 2017. They don't show the exact place where the car was parked (there is no signage in that spot). Also, at the entrance there are 3 signage with a lot of text.
I will read what it was suggested to me to see what can I write, but the thing is that their evidence aren't bad at all.

Coupon-mad

So what, give it a go, if you lose then ignore them like everyone else here does.

anar

Hi,

I already wrote a draft about the comments i want to send. It's with 3000 characters, so i still need to cut just don't know where...

On page 3, para 6, ECP states that "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, as the registered keeper, contest this because Templars Shopping Park – Oxford is a free park so this argument isn't valid.

As can be seen through the photos (pg. 26, 27 and 29) attached by ECP, there are a lot of stores at Templars Shopping Park and should be considered that 180 minutes of free parking aren't enough when a customer wants to visit and/or buy in several stores. Beside of that, this parking park doesn't allow the costumers to pay to stay for longer than 180 min. once there aren't payment machines on place. Also, in the initial appeal to POPLA it was sent a receipt from MATALAN that proves the main goal to visit the park was to do shopping.

On page 4, para 4, ECP states that "Vehicle OY08VRM entered the car park at 14:31 and 18:45; a total stay of 4 hours and 13 minutes...". ECP is not providing reliable information, once ECP states two different times (14:31 and 18:45) of entrance of the vehicle. Also, ECP states a total stay of 4h13min., but on page 14, point 2, states that "Euro Car Parks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant remained at the site for 3 hours and 58 minutes (Figure 1)" which suggests that ECP evidence is unreliable.

The signs shown in the photographs provided in the evidence pack don't state any grace period and are therefore non compliant, although on page 14, point 4, ECP states that "... I can confirm that Euro Car Parks have given the driver the suitable grace period of 10 minutes".

It is also worth noting that on a lot of the signs that have been shown in the evidence pack, the ‘Maximum stay 3 hours. Cameras in operation 24 hours a day’ is in larger and bolder lettering than the actual paragraph regarding the penalty, which seems to get lost in a wall of text.
In the evidence pack the photographs that are used are undated and are months prior to the date the alleged parking offence was committed. No evidence has been provided by ECP to show that the signs shown in the photographs were in fact displayed on the date of the alleged offence. The photographs undated and dated months before the alleged offence illustrate that the signage is in fact not clear if read in a moving vehicle, further supporting my point.
There are also multiple mistakes in the evidence pack that show that this is a template that is likely repeatedly used. On page 24 the photograph shows two signs. If you visit the place at this moment you can see that only the bigger sign is in place which again suggests that ECP evidence is not reliable and further illustrates to me that this is a template used.

What do you think about my draft? Is it good to send?

Thanks,