Popla Appeal -pending comment

keepsim

Hi

I received a Euro Car Parks penalty ticket in Dec 2018 for "no valid pay and display/permit was purchased'

In short, my wife was driving my car, she was in car park for 16 min few sec, didn't step out of the car park and left the site without paying. I replied to Euro car park notice but they rejected, I then appealed to popla using template from this website/forum, the operator (euro car park) has now replied to each point of my template.

So I need advice and guidance from this forum on what I should be replying now? I really don't know what I need to comment on now ? really appreciate if someone can guide me.

Long story now.


What actually happened first and this is what I told in euro car park appeal which they rejected.

1. My wife was driving the car at the time, on entering the parking site she was searching for a
suitable car park space but none was available, so she continued to look around and finally decided
to leave the car park site.
2. She was driving with our 9 months old baby, so she needed a suitable car park space which had
enough space where could easily take the baby out along with his push chair but no such space was
available.
3. At no point during her stay, she came out of the car, so her intention was not to park and not pay.
Her intention was to find a suitable slot first and then pay.
4. Without a suitable slot she could not have come out of the car park to pay.
5. There are no clear visible signage outlining the terms of parking which she could have seen sitting
within the car.

I had used following bullet points in my template- with 10 page long txt
As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:


1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
2) No Landowner Authority
3) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
4) The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator
5) No genuine pre-estimate of loss – case can be differentiated from ParkingEye-v-Beavis
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
7) Lack of legible signage - no contract with driver

keepsim

Would really appreciate if someone can provide me guidance on the next steps. I am expected to provide comment on Europark evidences.

I am sure someone will have gone through this ?

The_Deep

keepsim wrote: »

Would really appreciate if someone can provide me guidance on the next steps. I am expected to provide comment on Europark evidences.

I am sure someone will have gone through this ?

Have you read the stickies/FAQs, they are there to guide you forwards. Read this and complain to your MP.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

MistyZ

You only have 2,000 characters to rebut their evidence so concentrate on your strongest points.

You've identified the driver already, which is a shame. But what was it about the NTK that wasn't POFA compliant?

Did Euro Car Parks produce a copy of the landowner agreement? What was it like, did it pass muster do you think?

'No GPEOL' is dead in the water apparently, would not bother rebutting that.

In addition to the Newbies' thread, do an advanced search for 'POPLA evidence' / 'POPLA rebuttals', there are some good examples of how to do this.

Fruitcake

1) Whether the NTK was POFA compliant or not is irrelevant as you told them who was driving.

2) If the scammers have not provided a copy of a contemporary contract/authority from the landowner, you attack that. You simply say, they have not provided one therefore they do not have landowner authority.
If they have produced one then we need to see it. You will be looking to see if it is in date, if it has been renewed, if it is signed by the landowner etcetera. If they have produced a witness statement you challenge that if it is not from the landowner and does not state they can issue charges etcetera.

3) This is meaningless without the content. We have no idea what CoP failure you are alleging.

4) There are two grace periods in the BPA CoP, each of ten minutes. Quote the relevant sections of version 7.

5) As above, Not a GPEOL has been invalid since the Beavis case in 2015.

6) Challenge them to prove it is accurate and was so on the day by producing timing logs/synchronisation reports etcetera

7) If you or they provided Images of the signs, challenge the number, position, font size etcetera.

If they have failed to address any of your points, you tell the assessor that what you have stated must be true as they haven't said anything to the contrary.
As above, you only have 2000 characters to do this, so you need to mount a precision challenge to as many points as possible.
Concentrate on the ones that best help your case.

twhitehousescat

Fruitcake wrote: »

1) Whether the NTK was POFA compliant or not is irrelevant as you told them who was driving.

2) If the scammers have not provided a copy of a contemporary contract/authority from the landowner, you attack that. You simply say, they have not provided one therefore they do not have landowner authority.
If they have produced one then we need to see it. You will be looking to see if it is in date, if it has been renewed, if it is signed by the landowner etcetera. If they have produced a witness statement you challenge that if it is not from the landowner and does not state they can issue charges etcetera.

3) This is meaningless without the content. We have no idea what CoP failure you are alleging.

4) There are two grace periods in the BPA CoP, each of ten minutes. Quote the relevant sections of version 7.

5) As above, Not a GPEOL has been invalid since the Beavis case in 2015.

6) Challenge them to prove it is accurate and was so on the day by producing timing logs/synchronisation reports etcetera

7) If you or they provided Images of the signs, challenge the number, position, font size etcetera.

If they have failed to address any of your points, you tell the assessor that what you have stated must be true as they haven't said anything to the contrary.
As above, you only have 2000 characters to do this, so you need to mount a precision challenge to as many points as possible.
Concentrate on the ones that best help your case.

4) There are two grace periods in the BPA CoP, each of ten minutes. Quote the relevant sections of version 7.



the second period is only applicable after paying for parking , or if a free car park, the first period , is the one to decide to stay or leave

Coupon-mad

If you lose at POPLA, which people do sometimes v ECP, just ignore them.

keepsim

Thanks all.

1. They did not provide a copy of the landowner agreement in their evidence this is my understanding, all they have done is, provided pictures of the site, signboards and car entering/leaving

2. grace periods- they mentioned grace period is 10 minutes and car was on site for 16 minutes so don't think I can challenge that?

3. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate - can I still challenge ANPR entry and exit time could be inaccurate? they have provided pictures but really is it considerate accurate


4.signboard- they have pictures 3-4 pictures of signboard, 2 zoomed in with camera, 2 zoomed out on which you really cant read text, not certainly when you are driving.

well I can't think of anything else to say, unless someone has other ideas ?

Coupon-mad

Concentrate on #1 on your list, only.

That 100% wins the case if they've not provided any proof of landowner authority - as long as you listed it as an appeal point.

keepsim

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Concentrate on #1 on your list, only.

That 100% wins the case if they've not provided any proof of landowner authority - as long as you listed it as an appeal point.

Thanks will do

keepsim

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If you lose at POPLA, which people do sometimes v ECP, just ignore them.

dumb question- you saying just ignore popla if a decision is unsuccessful? and hopefully dogs will go away