Info needed re keeper \ registered keeper on ECP appeal page - Now CST LAW Letter - should i pay !

megkram

Hi Guys, so as above received ECP evidence pack, replied with my 2000 words on the 17/10, but i still have heard nothing, does it normall take this long guys, been searching some have a week or so then get an answer, just wondering whats going on, unless they are really busy

nosferatu1001

Have you logged onto your POPLA page, see what they say?

megkram

Hi, yeah it just says in progress, but it said that for weeks and weeks, they probably busy,

megkram

well i am nearly there, i got an email this morning at 10:15 saying we have reached end of our invstigation please log onto portal to see the decision


guess what, over an hour later and still nothing , it still in progress nothing has changed, i have just emailed them, hopefully find out today.

megkram

So there is something wrong with their systems at the moment, i contacted them and they have sent it to me via pdf doc to my email, but it wasn't good news, i am frustrated as the assessor just totally ignored the signage and said ecp have provided images, OMG so did i,

all their signs are the wrong way round on the carpark when you enter from kay st. iam so frustrated it is wrong , this is a absolute joke, my wife says just pay it and lets be done with it, but honestly guys, i not joking when i tell you that the driver entered and waited for a family member as it in middle of town in a position where you cannot see the signs at all, only sign you see is when you exit saying have you paid and displayed. this is wrong , just so wrong, (the letter below)

Dear xxx xxxxxx
Your parking charge Appeal against Euro Car Parks.

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your Appeal.
We have now reached the end of the Appeal process and have come to a decision. The decision is final and there is no further option for Appeal.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx, arising out of the presence of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

The Appellant Appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be Refused.

In order to avoid any further action by the Operator, payment of the parking charge should be made within 28 days.

The Assessor’s summary of the operator’s case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and the motorist failed to display a valid ticket.
The Assessor’s summary of the appellant’s case:
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The operator has not allowed a grace period which is non-compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces , the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition ( ANPR) data will be used for and the ANPR system is neither accurate or reliable. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • There is no evidence of the period parked, the Notice to Keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements and the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. • There is a failure to comply with the ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR( No information about SAR Rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair proportionate.
The appellant has provided a word document explaining their appeal as evidence to support their appeal.

Reasons for the Assessor’s determination:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and the motorist failed to display a valid ticket.
The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: ”Welcome to Kay Street 24 hour pay and display car park”, ”This car park is patrolled and failure to comply with the following may result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice” and “Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 13:54 and exiting at 14:08 on the day of the incident. The operator maintains a list of vehicles which have made payment on the day against individual vehicle registration details . In this evidence it has demonstrated that no payment had been made for the vehicle on the day of the incident.

On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice.

The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements and the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver.
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.

The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a grace period which is non-compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal however, POPLA can only assess appeals
based on evidence provided by both parties. In this instance the appellant has not provided any evidence to support or explain their ground of appeal. The operator’s evidence shows that the vehicle remained on the site for 13 minutes.

The appellant says that there is no evidence of the period parked.
The parking operator has provided evidence from the ANPR system that the motorist’s vehicle had entered the site on the day in question. I am satisfied that the operator’s evidence proves the case it is claiming. In this instance the appellant has not provided any evidence to refute the operator’s claim.
The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for and the ANPR system is neither accurate or reliable. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site.

From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions.

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 parkingterms 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.”

I can also see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, the signage states “By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems”.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for” The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority.

Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a statutory declaration, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR( No information about SAR Rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair proportionate.

As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator or the ICO directly.
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 chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties , the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and the motorist failed to display a valid ticket and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site.

I am satisfied that parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore this appeal must be refused.
Accordingly, the Appeal is Refused.
Yours sincerely

beamerguy

megkram .... sounds like you got the early morning tea boy on the case. There are assessors in POPLA who are completely useless, you seem to have had one of those.

POPLA are not fit for purpose but it goes like this sometimes

Euro Car Parks are easy to beat. They may progress to debt collectors which you ignore .... POWERLESS JOKERS

PRE WARNED HERE ABOUT DEBT COLLECTORS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74439905#Comment_74439905

IGNORE THE PLEBBIES

If you get a letter before claim from one of Euro's cheapo legals then come back here.
You'll be pleased to know that judges more often than not find in the defendants favour especially with the proof you have.

This then makes POPLA look like idiots but as we all know, they were set up by the infamous BPA who are also not fit for purpose

Nothing will happen, if it ever does, until well into 2019 so just wait, all the help is available here

megkram

hi, thank you for the reply and thanks for the reassurance, will keep you all informed and hopefully help out as much as i can for other people who are going through the same, i can honestly say i will take it all the way if i need to.

megkram

hi guys, an update, as you can see with the date of the posts its been a while, i have heard nothing at all, and today i have received a letter from CST LAW, a unpaid debt -reminder notice
they say in the letter that their client would like to provide me with the opportunity to make full payment of £160 to avoid court action being taken and a increase in the amount claimed, please contact debt recovery plus ltd to discuss payment proposal etc
SO .....  the big question is should i pay it now :-(

Thanks

Redx

Read all the other recent ECP and CST law posts , threads and replies , don't stay on your own thread , there were a few discussions yesterday about it , plenty of insights and advice in several threads by myself Umkomaas , Brown trout , Coupon mad and others

megkram

ok i will go over it later , thanks for the quick reply, my wife is saying just pay it, but it so unfair