Euro Car Parks, Uxbridge, PCN.

MC321

Hi all,

So I have read through the "Newbies" thread and see various good arguments in regards to a POPLA appeal.

I have already had my ECP internal appeal rejected and I am looking for templates to relating to my arguments more suited to my case for POPLA.

On a Sunday night in October 2018 my vehicle was taken to Uxbridge Halfords/Wicks' car park (with my consent) so an undisclosed driver could get used to driving the car.

I recieved a NTK issued 7 days later, stating that ANPR at the car park had registered the car entering the car park at 21:39:36 and leaving the car park at 22:05:38 say the driver was in breach of the Ts+Cs ect ect.

The times on the signs after closer inspection state "Maximum stay 15 minutes Sun 18:00 to 06:29, no return within 2 hours. Normally it is max 1hr stay free car park.

In the NTK I also received two images of my Number plate that had been cropped and then dates/times added underneath. Not BPA Code of Practice compliant. So i requested the un-edited images in my appeal

In the appeal rejection letter there were various points below:
_______
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for
the following reasons:
1- 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.
2- The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject
to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. This signage quite clearly
states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a
Parking Charge Notice will be issued.
3- Parking at the above site is limited to 60 minutes Monday to Saturday 06:30 hours to
20:59 hours / Sunday 08:30 hours to 17:59 hours. There is a maximum stay of 15
minutes Monday to Friday 21:00 hours to 06:29 hours / Saturday 21:00 hours to 08:29
hours / Sunday 18:00 hours to 06:29 hours.
4- 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.
5- I would respectfully remind that contract law applies in this instance.
6- The car park is private property and signage on entrance and within the private car park
clearly set out the rules and regulations of the car park and tariffs (if applicable). By entering
the car park, parking and leaving the vehicle the driver has accepted the ‘contract’ and
therefore if the driver fail to comply with the terms and conditions a parking charge notice will
be correctly issued.
7- Your vehicle was parked longer than 60 minutes/hours, therefore the notice was issued
correctly and remains payable.

8 -Additionally they provided me two photographs of an unidentifiable vehicle (presumably mine, but we shouldn't presume) with time/date stamps but the quality and darkness of the environment you cannot see the Make/Model/Colour or Reg at all. again they also sent ANPR photograph of just my Reg (with no time/date stamp)
___________
my defenses/arguments for the above..

1- Calculate length of stay,

---

commercial purpose ect ----
2- The entry sign to the car park is 3+ meters off the ground and not clearly visible is car entered from the northern part of Harefield road. The signs in the car park are 2+ meters off the ground are arguably no visible/clear ---- There are no clear entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

---

3- simply outlines Maximum "stay". I would also assume Grace periods would be covered in this, especially when the signs and so high and the writing so small ect...If a driver were to spend 10-12 minutes deciphering the signs then agree to the "contract", would they still be given the 15 minutes on top of that grace period. and a grace period at the end too. My vehicle allegedly "stayed" for a total of 26 minutes and 2 seconds. A total of 11 minutes and 2 seconds over the "Maximum Stay"
4- "Ensure my vehicle was correctly parked".. My vehicle did not park. well maybe for possibly 30 seconds when changing drivers.
5- contract law...
6- repeating point 2....?
7- now they are saying that my vehicle was parked for longer than 60 minutes. but they cant provide any proof of my vehicle actually being parked, as requested...
8- Already addressed the photographs.

Additionally there was of course more than one driver, no of which have been disclosed. But if this is the case, which driver agreed to the contract? the one who drove in, or the one who drove out?

Help, any to links to these templates for these arguments would be great as reading through various appeals has given me a massive headache. need to build a draft for review and want to argue the strongest points.

HELP

Kr
M

Coupon-mad

On a Sunday night in October 2018

August maybe?

Additionally there was of course more than one driver, no of which have been disclosed. But if this is the case, which driver agreed to the contract? the one who drove in, or the one who drove out?

Good point about the two drivers, and the fact the car never actually parked, so cannot be held to a 'parking event' - but that would be for you to prove.

And that the signs were unclear about the 15 minutes, which is in small font?

The times on the signs after closer inspection state "Maximum stay 15 minutes Sun 18:00 to 06:29, no return within 2 hours. Normally it is max 1hr stay free car park.

I guess you are the keeper but can you get a signed/dated Witness Statement from the new driver, not giving their full name(!) but headed up with the day, time, and VRN number, confirming they were merely using the site to drive round to get used to handling this car, and at no point did they park.

And that they then, when executing a 3 point turn, they handed the controls to the person with them, who also did not park.

Then you will have to show POPLA that the POFA only talks about parking events, not 'total stay' where that time has been shown NOT to be 'parking' at all. Even if POPLA is minded to think total stay IS parking, then clearly there was more than one driver so this cannot be a PCN properly given (as Sch4 says a PCN can only relate to ONE parking event).

This will not be easy to convince POPLA about, but hey, people do sometimes lose at POPLA (search the forum for Euro POPLA lost) and copy them and sit tight, if the POPLA appeal doesn't work.

Template appeal points are in the NEWBIES post #3, to make it deliberately long.

MC321

"August maybe" -- Yes, my apologies. As i said, too much reading for my brain to work properly. additionally I got the day wrong, it was a Tuesday, not sunday.. it's been a long day...

"Good point about the two drivers, and the fact the car never actually parked, so cannot be held to a 'parking event' - but that would be for you to prove." -- Do you think telematics (Black box) data would be valid evidence.
On "my journeys" its states the following - Tuesday ** August 2018 21:35, distance 2.11, Time 22 minutes". Additionally it has a Map that shows the vehicle going around the car park over its own tracks over and over again.

"And that the signs were unclear about the 15 minutes, which is in small font?" yes is states, "Maximum stay 15 minutes" similarly to "Maximum stay 1 hour" next to it, but the time in which these rules operates is in small print below.

I can address the Witness statement after these two Qs

Thank you again,

M

Redx

yes a telematics box is good evidence if it shows the vehicle was not "parked" for the time they state (or longer than the time allowed for parking)


signage is ALWAYS an issue, so yes include small print issues etc too, plus lighting issues if it was dark and they could not read the signs easily or at all


so pics of signage at night would also be good

MC321

Okay.

So do you think I should mainly focus on the Telematics evidence of not actually parking (with screen shots of journeys) then once I have exhausted that move on to signage and if necessary the fact of there being two two drivers.?

M

MC321

Due to time restraints I'm struggling to argue all of the points stated in the top of the document. Do you feel it will be totally necessary to argue points 4 - 10 with the evidence I have produced regarding not even parking there.

Any feed back, suggestions/recommendations would be great.

Thank you in advanced,
Please see below:
__________________________________
Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v Euro Car Parks Ltd
Vehicle Registration: [XXX]
POPLA ref: [XXX]
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 – Euro Car parks Ltd – 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) The vehicle in question never parked on the premises of Euro Car Parks Ltd.
2) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012
Requirements
3) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice –
non-compliance
4) There are no clear entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
5) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
6) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data
will be used for
7) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice'
applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement,
no evaluation
8) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict
proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified,
fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
9) No Planning Permission from Tower Hamlet Borough Council for
10) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance
Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage.

1) The vehicle in question never parked on the premises of Euro Car Parks Ltd.
For a Parking charge notice to be issued there needs to be a “Parking Event” in which a vehicle as Parked. The Vehicle was driven to the car park so a driver could become familiar with the controls in a safe environment.
I argue that the vehicle in question did not park at any point which Euro Car Parks Ltd state it did. See figure 1 and 1a (enlarged mapping) below which show the journey start time, distance travelled and duration.
Figure 1 – Shows date and time of event, distance 2.11 miles and duration 22 minutes


Figure 1A – Show vehicle driving over its own tracks within the car park and date/time.


Looking at these telematics records for the vehicle in question it shows that the vehicles journey commenced at 21:35 on the 14/08/2018. The vehicle then drove to Euro Car Parks on Harefield road, arriving at 21:39 according to the NtK, where it continued to drive around the car park, (as you can see in Figure 1A) until 21:57. The vehicle then stalled whilst doing a manoeuvre where the vehicle stopped and the vehicle shut down. Three minutes later the vehicle was started up again there was a change of driver and the vehicle drove towards the exit of the car park. (see figure 2 below)
Figure 2 – shows vehicle in used between the times of 22:01 and 22:02.


The vehicle then stopped for a further 3 minutes where it then proceed to leave the car park premises at 22:05 (see figure 3 below). At no point was the vehicle parked; only stopped to change drivers.









Figuer 3 – shows vehicle leaving car park premises at 21:05.



I have provided an in-depth evidence from the “PeugeotTelematicsPortal” showing the routing and travel of the vehicle accurate to the minute, during the times in which Euro Car Parks state the vehicle was parked.
Additionally in the Euro Car Parks Ltd appeal refusal letter they stated that I had stayed more than 60 minutes (see figure 4 below), which Figures 1 – 3 prove incorrect.
Figure 4 – see highlight area stating “parked longer than 60 minutes”

2) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record from Euro Car Parks Ltd to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract. PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Euro Car Parks Ltd’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. At no stage does Euro Car Parks Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012. Euro Car Parks Ltd uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay. Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. Euro Carp Parks Ltd, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks Ltd to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

3) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
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 unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. 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 NtK in question contains two close-up license plate images. The time and date stamp and license plate have been inserted into the underneath (but not part of) the images. In addition, the first image does not even show a vehicle, only an inserted image of the license plate and time stamp. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by Euro Car Parks Ltd’s APRN.
As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and Euro Car Parks Ltd claim was unauthorized. I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to produce clear evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than just passing by. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, failing to produce such evidence would indicate the Euro Car Parks Ltd has been using APRN to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send NtK with the aim to extract penalty. Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.
Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

Coupon-mad

the fact the car never actually parked, so cannot be held to a 'parking event' - but that would be for you to prove." -- Do you think telematics (Black box) data would be valid evidence.
On "my journeys" its states the following - Tuesday ** August 2018 21:35, distance 2.11, Time 22 minutes". Additionally it has a Map that shows the vehicle going around the car park over its own tracks over and over again.

Brilliant! Never seen that used in a POPLA appeal before, but YES!

And are you saying your evidence proves the car was there for 22 minutes, but the PPC says their ANPR is alleging 25 minutes?

Can I check, are you ASSUMING that their ANPR 'exit time' is right, or does your telematics system show the car did leave at 22.05pm?

The vehicle then stopped for a further 3 minutes where it then proceed to leave the car park premises at 22:05 (see figure 3 below). At no point was the vehicle parked; only stopped to change drivers.

Just wanting to check that their ANPR isn't 3 mins out?

MC321

Okay, just to clarify. When the vehicle stopped/stalled the second time the black box and car didnt start again for 3 minutes, until 2205 where it started and left, unfortuantly ANPR wasnt 3 minutes out.

Right so i have drafted up to 6 points so far, with photos of car park signs ect.. 12 pages total and just under 5000 words, would you say that would be enough for ECP to not bother providing their own evidence in regards to my defences?

Coupon-mad

Okay, just to clarify. When the vehicle stopped/stalled the second time the black box and car didnt start again for 3 minutes, until 2205 where it started and left, unfortuantly ANPR wasnt 3 minutes out.

So you can add that bit too, that the vehicle can be proven to have been driving round, not parked, then there is a 3 minute period when the new driver stalled it and the passenger had to take over, and the car would not start for 2 or 3 minutes - as shown by the gap in the telemetrics starting up - then the car left (having never parked at all).

I think with all this evidence, ECP might not bother to contest but it's hard to know.

MC321

Hi again,

So ive just got home from a teo week holiday, thus dead silence.

Below I have put my main argument for you guys to quickly proof read, that would be great.

Additionally the points relating to the signs, I have inserted a multitude of images from a similar time of the event..

Any suggestions changes let me know

I plan to submit this in the next few days.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Appeal re POPLA Code: ****** v Euro Car Parks Ltd

Vehicle Registration: ******

POPLA ref: ******

I the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 21/08/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Euro Car parks Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged on 24/08/2018 but subsequently rejected by an email dated 11/09/2018. 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 vehicle in question never parked on the premises of Euro Car Parks Ltd.

2) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 Requirements

3) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

4) There are no clear entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

5) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accuratev

6) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

!

1) The vehicle in question was never parked on the premises of Euro Car Parks Ltd.

For a Parking charge notice to be issued there needs to be a “Parking Event” in which a vehicle as Parked. The Vehicle was driven to the car park so a driver could become familiar with the controls in a safe environment.

I argue that the vehicle in question did not park at any point which Euro Car Parks Ltd state it did. See figure 1 and 1a (enlarged mapping) below which show the journey start time, distance travelled and duration.

Figure 1.1 – Shows date and time of event, distance 2.11 miles and duration 22 minutes


Figure 1.1A – Show vehicle driving over its own tracks within the car park and date/time.

!

!

Looking at these telematics records for the vehicle in question it shows that the vehicles journey commenced at 21:35 on the 14/08/2018. The vehicle then drove to Euro Car Parks on Harefield road, arriving at 21:39 according to the NtK, !where it continued to drive around the car park, (as you can see in Figure 1.1A) until 21:57. The vehicle then stalled whilst doing a manoeuvre where the vehicle stopped and the vehicle shut down. Three minutes later the vehicle was started up again there was a change of driver and the vehicle drove towards the exit of the car park. (See figure 1.2 below)

!

Figure 1.2 – shows vehicle in used between the times of 22:01 and 22:02.

!

The vehicle then stalled and stopped for a further 3 minutes where it then proceed to leave the car park premises at 22:05 (see figure 1.3 below). At no point was the vehicle parked; only stopped to change drivers.

!

Figure 1.3 – shows vehicle leaving car park premises at 21:05.

!

I have provided an in-depth evidence from the “PeugeotTelematicsPortal” showing the routing and travel of the vehicle accurate to the minute, during the times in which Euro Car Parks state the vehicle was parked.

Additionally in the Euro Car Parks Ltd appeal refusal letter they stated that I had stayed more than 60 minutes (see figure 1.4 below), which Figures 1.1 – 1.3 prove incorrect.

Figure 1.4 – see highlight area stating “parked longer than 60 minutes”

!

2) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

!

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record from Euro Car Parks Ltd to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract. PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Euro Car Parks Ltd’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered Harefield retail park - Uxbridge at 21:39:36 and departed at 22:05:38”.

At no stage does Euro Car Parks Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012. Euro Car Parks Ltd uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay. Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. Euro Carp Parks Ltd, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks Ltd to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

Coupon-mad

Remove all this, no need for an introduction of waffle that splits infinitives with ''I'' then some words, then the poor verb! Nasty template that one, due to that intro. Much better without it!

Where is 'no landowner authority'? A template that is ALWAYS needed.

1) The vehicle in question was never parked on the premises of Euro Car Parks Ltd.

I would add to this first point:

For a Parking charge notice to be issued there needs to be a “Parking Event” in which a vehicle was, in fact, parked for more than just the 3 minutes the car was temporarily stopped - and the drivers swapped over - as it stalled. The Vehicle was driven to the car park so a driver could become familiar with the controls in a safe environment, and the car can be proven to be driving round all the time, with brief stalling not counting as a single period of parking, under the POFA:

(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)

Due to the proof below, it is clear that there was no single period of parking - total stay is irrelevant when an appellant can prove the car didn't park - and nor did the operator serve a NTK that related ONLY to a single period of parking. It related to a period of driving, and there is no capacity within the POFA for 'keeper liability' for driving on private land (POPLA is called 'Parking on Private Land Appeals' for that exact reason)!.