PCN by Euro Car Parks

Le_Kirk

anar wrote: »

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...

[STRIKE]On [/STRIKE] Page 3 para 6 ECP states [STRIKE]that [/STRIKE] Any form of parking ticket or notice is issued under the law of trespass [STRIKE]and [/STRIKE] & Contract Law. A driver who is invited or chooses, to park on private land [STRIKE]and [/STRIKE]& use the car parking facilities [STRIKE]and [/STRIKE]& 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.

I've made a start at the beginning, just carry on like that. It doesn't need to be a narrative, just bullet point rebuttal.

anar

Thanks for your reply!
Well, I still need to cut some text, because it's to long.
Do you think it's ok like this?

Thanks,

Le_Kirk

It will be OK when you get below 2,000 characters. Have you checked out the advice given by KeithP in post #37? Find some other rebuttals of PPC responses. If your POPLA appeal said "X" and the response from the PPC was "Y" you need a bullet point to say "No, it was "X" and here is why."

anar

Hi,

I did some changings in my rebuttal and now is exactly with 2000 characters.
I was reading some other rebuttals of PPC responses and this is the final one:

Dear Sirs,
Ref. POPLA appeal XXXXXXX
In response to the evidence pack ECP have submitted I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 14/08/2018.

It is 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 are undated and 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 photos were in fact displayed on the date of the alleged offence. The photos illustrate that the signage is in fact not clear if read in a moving vehicle, further supporting my point.

On page 24 the photograph shows 2 signs. If you visit the place at this moment you can see that only the bigger one is in place which suggests that ECP evidence is not reliable and further illustrates to me that this is a template used.

The maximum free stay for the park is 3 hours which isn't enough for a customer who wants to visit or buy in several of the stores of the retail park. Also, the park doesn't allow the costumers to pay to stay for longer than 3h once there aren't payment machines on place.
Also, in the initial appeal to POPLA it was sent a receipt from MATALAN that proves that the main goal of the visit was to do shopping.

On page 4 ECP states: "Vehicle OY08VRM entered the car park at 14:31 and 18:45; a total stay of 4 hours and 13 minutes.". ECP isn't providing reliable information once ECP states two different times (14:31 and 18:45) of entrance. Also, ECP states a total stay of 4h13 but on page 14 says that "Euro Car Parks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant remained at the site for 3 hours and 58 minutes" suggesting that ECP evidence is unreliable.

End


Should I send it like this?


Thanks,

anar

Hi, guys!

As expected, POPLA's decision was unsuccessful.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Chris Markey

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice for your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; 3. the entrance signs and the other 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. failure to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach; 5. proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park; 6. the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate; 7. no evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements; and 8. vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; 3. the entrance signs and the other 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. failure to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach; 5. proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park; 6. the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate; 7. no evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements; and 8. vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. Assessor Summary of reasons I am unsure of the driver and will therefore consider Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The terms and conditions at the site state: “Maximum stay 3 hours… Cameras in operation 24 hours a day (Monday to Sunday)… This car park is patrolled, failure to comply with the following may result in the issued of a £90 Parking Charge Notice… The car park is for the sole use of Templars Shopping Park customers…Parking onsite for the use of facilities away from the car park are not permitted… Parking within parked bays…Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays (No Concessions for Disabled Badge Holders)… Parent & Child Parking Only Within Marked Bays… We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day (Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays)”. In this instance the parking operator has issued a PCN as it alleges the motorist’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle xxxxxx entering the site on 26 June 2018 at 14:31 and 18:45 a total stay of four hours and 13 minutes. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; 3. the entrance signs and the other 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. failure to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach; 5. proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park; 6. the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate; 7. no evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements; and 8. vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. I note that when the parking operator requested the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle, the DVLA returned the details the appellant is acting on behalf of. As such, I believe that the parking operator was correct to issue the PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle given the DVLA named her as the registered keeper at the time. The appellant states that the claimant has not complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has raised several grounds of requirement of Schedule 4, paragraph 9, that they do not feel the Notice to Keeper complies with. As the appellant has raised these grounds, I have reviewed all of paragraph 9 in PoFA and the requirement of the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the parking operator has met all of the requirements. As such this entitles it to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges in the event it does not receive the full details of the driver within the period specified. The appellant states there is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice. The operator has produced a witness statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. I am satisfied that the witness statement provided by the operator meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states the entrance signs and the other 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. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant states the parking operator failed to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach. The operator is not required to provide this as part of its evidence. If the appellant does not feel that the operator is signed up to this code of practice the appellant can raise this directly with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. The BPA Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras within Section 21. The parking operator states it fully complies with this. In relation to Section 21.1 the parking operator uses ANPR cameras in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. All signage contains the universally recognised symbol for the use of these cameras and it is made clear that ANPR technology is in use on site. As already stated I am satisfied with the parking operator’s signage at the site and therefore satisfied they have complied with Section 21.1. I acknowledge the appellant’s request stating they want proof of the ANPR quality check relating to the date the PCN was issued to the registered keeper. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. ANPR cameras are used to capture images of vehicles when they enter and exit a site. This then calculates the length of the vehicle’s stay. Unless sufficient evidence can be given to dispute that a vehicle was not onsite for the recorded time, this is deemed a reliable way to monitor a vehicle’s stay. As such, photographs of a parked vehicle are not necessary. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If a motorist is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or feels that the terms and conditions cannot be complied with, there would be sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site in excess of the maximum period allowed, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.


Next stage is to ignore the letters from debt collectors! Or should I appeal again?
Probably if they take me to court they will win so... What should I do? I know that nobody have paid ECP's PCN, but...

Coupon-mad

Next stage is to ignore the letters from debt collectors...LOL...

I've removed & replaced your exclamation mark because that is what we all did before POPLA existed (started 6 years ago only) and I've done it myself. Ignore them, it's easy and amusing to see each desperate lying demand.

anar

Hello,

Just a quick update. As expected, the debt collector already started chasing me. In this case is Debt Recovery Plus. Basically they are saying it's better if I pay the 150£ (the price is higher now), otherwise they will recommend to ECP that they take court action against me.
Well, I'm ignoring them. But just to remind me, if they take me to court do I need to pay the money they ask me in that stage or the initial amount of PCN?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Neither ECP nor DRP will take you to court (ECP are clueless and DRP can't).

If they (ECP) grew a pair and started a claim, you would defend, not pay it. We see 99% wins and no risk of huge costs.

Your only concern is to write by email to ECP's Data Protection Officer if you move house within 6 years of the PCN, to rectify the address data to ensure you see all letters.

anar

Hello, Coupon-mad!
Thanks for your quick reply. I will keep ignoring them.

anar

Hello, guys!

New update: I received a new letter from the debt collectors saying that as I didn't pay the amount of the previous letter they will advise ECP to take me to court. Of course a they still say that if I want to I still can pay 150£.
They were really quick between letters...

Thanks