We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal
multi_juggler
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi,
Firstly, thank you to those who contribute to this forum and make it such a valuable source of information for people such as myself.
My situation is, I'm sure, not an uncommon one. I was sent a notice through the post from Euro Car Parks because the driver of my vehicle 'stayed' in a carpark for 34 minutes over the allotted time. The driver was completely unaware of the restrictions and I was very surprised to get said charge through the post. I have appealed to ECP using similar points to those below but this was, predictably, rejected.
I have written the following POPLA appeal using a variety of different points found on here and was wondering if anyone could help me as to whether it is along the right lines. Thank you in advance. Apologies for the long post!
POPLA Appeal:
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Euro Car Parks. I submit the points below as an appeal to the parking charge notice:
1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
2) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed
3) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
4) Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper
1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
I believe that Euro Car Parks has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Euro Car Parks must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that Euro Car Parks merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
I therefore put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Euro Car Parks and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and I can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.), and a witness statement may be made by someone who has no knowledge of any individual parking event and the signatory may never even have seen the contract.
Should the above contract be supplied and contain a clause regarding not pursuing genuine customers of the stores on the retail park, I enclose in Appendix 1 a copy of a screenshot of a bank statement showing that the driver of the vehicle was a genuine customer during the alleged parking period.
2) Inadequate signage and validity of contract.
On visiting the site in question since the alleged parking incident, the signage displayed at the site is inadequate. The entrance to the site is situated on a busy road, and a single small sign at the entrance is impossible to read when turning right into the car park. This is compounded by the sign having blue writing on a yellow background. The entrance sign is also mounted on a wall running parallel to the road, again making it unreadable without stopping.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the small font size of the £100 and its insignificance when compared with the rest of the text - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist. No one in their right mind would risk overstaying if they were aware that the charge would be £100, which leads me to believe that the driver must have been unaware of the amount in question. Appendix 2 shows a photograph of the image that they supplied, showing that zero prominence is given to, arguably the most important piece of information on the sign, the charge itself.
Given the locations of the signs located around the car park it is entirely possible to park in the car park in a space for accessing the Energi Trampoline Park inside the entrance without encountering any further signage, therefore the driver would not be aware of the “terms” of parking before they had parked. I also enclose a photograph of the aforementioned area in Appendix 3. As can be seen from the image, the sign for that block of parking bays is almost completely obscured by a ‘We Buy Any Car’ kiosk and there are no further signs viewable on entry to the trampoline park (also visible in the picture).
The driver maintains that they were unaware of the parking control existing in the area.
3) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
Euro Car Parks evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit. The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue:
(insert link)
The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''
Since I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. As Euro Car Parks are relying on images that do not show the vehicle being parked, this could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for more than 3 hours.
The provision of the images does not indicate that the vehicle was parked for that specific time. The car park in question is known to be busy, and as such the vehicle in question may have been waiting for a suitable space. Euro Car Parks should therefore provide strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the times stated, and not merely in the car park. They should also provide strict proof that no double visit occurred.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Euro Car Parks have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. As stated in the point above, since the signage was so poor this has not been clearly brought to the attention of the driver. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Euro Car Parks 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 my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Euro Car Parks to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is unreliable.
4) Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper
Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is subject to the creditor meeting all of POFA’s requirements.
I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Euro Car Parks’ Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that the parking charges have not been paid in full. In addition, contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). It simply includes a date, suggesting when the notice was produced. Also, and most importantly, contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to the period of parking.
I request that my appeal is allowed.
Yours faithfully,
Firstly, thank you to those who contribute to this forum and make it such a valuable source of information for people such as myself.
My situation is, I'm sure, not an uncommon one. I was sent a notice through the post from Euro Car Parks because the driver of my vehicle 'stayed' in a carpark for 34 minutes over the allotted time. The driver was completely unaware of the restrictions and I was very surprised to get said charge through the post. I have appealed to ECP using similar points to those below but this was, predictably, rejected.
I have written the following POPLA appeal using a variety of different points found on here and was wondering if anyone could help me as to whether it is along the right lines. Thank you in advance. Apologies for the long post!
POPLA Appeal:
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Euro Car Parks. I submit the points below as an appeal to the parking charge notice:
1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
2) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed
3) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
4) Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper
1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
I believe that Euro Car Parks has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Euro Car Parks must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that Euro Car Parks merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
I therefore put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Euro Car Parks and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and I can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.), and a witness statement may be made by someone who has no knowledge of any individual parking event and the signatory may never even have seen the contract.
Should the above contract be supplied and contain a clause regarding not pursuing genuine customers of the stores on the retail park, I enclose in Appendix 1 a copy of a screenshot of a bank statement showing that the driver of the vehicle was a genuine customer during the alleged parking period.
2) Inadequate signage and validity of contract.
On visiting the site in question since the alleged parking incident, the signage displayed at the site is inadequate. The entrance to the site is situated on a busy road, and a single small sign at the entrance is impossible to read when turning right into the car park. This is compounded by the sign having blue writing on a yellow background. The entrance sign is also mounted on a wall running parallel to the road, again making it unreadable without stopping.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the small font size of the £100 and its insignificance when compared with the rest of the text - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist. No one in their right mind would risk overstaying if they were aware that the charge would be £100, which leads me to believe that the driver must have been unaware of the amount in question. Appendix 2 shows a photograph of the image that they supplied, showing that zero prominence is given to, arguably the most important piece of information on the sign, the charge itself.
Given the locations of the signs located around the car park it is entirely possible to park in the car park in a space for accessing the Energi Trampoline Park inside the entrance without encountering any further signage, therefore the driver would not be aware of the “terms” of parking before they had parked. I also enclose a photograph of the aforementioned area in Appendix 3. As can be seen from the image, the sign for that block of parking bays is almost completely obscured by a ‘We Buy Any Car’ kiosk and there are no further signs viewable on entry to the trampoline park (also visible in the picture).
The driver maintains that they were unaware of the parking control existing in the area.
3) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
Euro Car Parks evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit. The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue:
(insert link)
The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''
Since I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. As Euro Car Parks are relying on images that do not show the vehicle being parked, this could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for more than 3 hours.
The provision of the images does not indicate that the vehicle was parked for that specific time. The car park in question is known to be busy, and as such the vehicle in question may have been waiting for a suitable space. Euro Car Parks should therefore provide strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the times stated, and not merely in the car park. They should also provide strict proof that no double visit occurred.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Euro Car Parks have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. As stated in the point above, since the signage was so poor this has not been clearly brought to the attention of the driver. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Euro Car Parks 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 my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Euro Car Parks to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is unreliable.
4) Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper
Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is subject to the creditor meeting all of POFA’s requirements.
I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Euro Car Parks’ Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that the parking charges have not been paid in full. In addition, contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). It simply includes a date, suggesting when the notice was produced. Also, and most importantly, contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to the period of parking.
I request that my appeal is allowed.
Yours faithfully,
0
Comments
-
You could expand on your inadequate signage point by incorporating the very long one from the NEWBIES into the points you have already made about signage.
Back them up with your own images and embed them rather than hyperlinks. That way the assessor has to look at them.
You can show us the images first if you have the time. Upload them to a web hosting site such as tinypic, postimage, dropbox etcetera, then post the URL here, but change http to hxxp. Someone here will change it back to a live link. You could do the same with a redacted copy of the NTK as well if you think it might help.
Ensure the webhost account is not in anyone's real name, and doesn't have any personal images. Believe me, it has happened!
What was the date of the alleged event, and when did the NTK arrive? Since you haven't mentioned this I'm guessing it might have been within 14 days, but please confirm.
Well done on getting this far by the way. It makes things a lot easier when posters do their homework before starting a thread. It is much appreciated.
Have you complained to the landowner/retail manager?
Please complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.
eta,
Make sure the bank statement does not reveal the driver's name!I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Thank you for your quick response.
The images are embedded in the document at the end in the form of Appendices. Do you think it would be better to move them to the main body of text? It's your standard large, retail park but the sign serving the 16 or so bays is almost entirely obscured by a kiosk. I don't have any of those accounts; I'm a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to file sharing.
The alleged event took place on the 23/10/18 and the NTK arrived on the 31st.
There are several businesses on the park. Who would you complain to primarily and by what means? I tried a phone call to a Costa but it didn't get me anywhere.
The statement doesn't include any revelations!0 -
Yes, I would embed images at the appropriate point throughout 'the story'.
Make it easy for the assessor to come to the right conclusion.
You will have already seen this illustrated appeal linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread:
0 -
It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.
Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct
The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.
Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.
All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
multi_juggler wrote: »Thank you for your quick response.
The images are embedded in the document at the end in the form of Appendices. Do you think it would be better to move them to the main body of text? It's your standard large, retail park but the sign serving the 16 or so bays is almost entirely obscured by a kiosk. I don't have any of those accounts; I'm a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to file sharing.
The alleged event took place on the 23/10/18 and the NTK arrived on the 31st.
There are several businesses on the park. Who would you complain to primarily and by what means? I tried a phone call to a Costa but it didn't get me anywhere.
The statement doesn't include any revelations!
I agree with Keith. Embed the images at the appropriate part of the main appeal. It will ensure the assessor doesn't miss the whole of the appendix, and also they might get Peed off if they have to keep flipping from one part of the appeal to another.
OK, so no mileage in late NTK then, but the signage behind a kiosk is good. Get the worst possible view from a motorist's perspective, ideally through the windscreen of a car negotiation it's way through the car park to show how easy it is to miss the signs/difficult/impossible to see them.
Point this out to the assessor. Something like, these images were taken on a subsequent site visit and as you can see, the signs are not prominent, cannot be read/seen, are obscured, or whatever wording best suits each individual shot.
Also take close up shots and point out any ambiguous or non BPA CoP complaint wording.
Try contacting the manager of any shops that were visited, or are visited on a regular basis. Sometimes there is a clause that allows shop managers to get a PCN cancelled. Just showing one receipt, proof of purchase, previous purchases, even a store loyalty card might persuade a manager to help. Never bother with customer services though.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
I have seen that appeal, thank you. I will incorporate my pictures into the body of the text. Thanks.0
-
So, other than expanding upon unclear signage and moving pictures, is there anything else that I may not have included that is standard in these type of appeals?
Is it more or less good to go?0 -
0
-
Thank you, notparked. If that sign was deemed not compliant what is the POPLA number of that case and assessor or is it okay to simply say that 'in a previous case POPLA ruled in favour blah, blah, blah'?0
-
multi_juggler wrote: »Thank you, notparked. If that sign was deemed not compliant what is the POPLA number of that case and assessor or is it okay to simply say that 'in a previous case POPLA ruled in favour blah, blah, blah'?
Unortunately this wasn't a PoPLA decision. The scammers chickened out when they saw the appeal and cancelled the PCN. We don't know the reason, only that the scammers knew they would lose so pulled out rather than pay £27.50 plus VaT to PoPLA.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards