Popla appeal euro car parks

Redx

I never said I was using word, in fact I was using Notepad++

but even in word 2007 your earlier version is over 2000 characters, including spaces , same in word 2013 too

after 6 years of advising on this forum I would NEVER doing something so stupid as to include any extra words or lines like your opener or the name of somebody I am quoting

my copy and paste is purely your rebuttal, nothing more

Redx

Frustration of contract ECP has provided no proof the provided payment methods were working and fault free. Nor have they shown signs instructing the driver how to pay by phone, only a number and app to use. ECP has also failed to show prominent signs on site such that the party must have known and agreed terms it was the driver's responsibility to check for other payment methods or find alternative parking to avoid a PCN being issued in the event of a machine fault

POPLA is reminded that you are an evidence-based appeals service ONLY, which requires omissions in evidence to be noticed

Signs The evidence provided by ECP prove my points concerning the signs and not the points made by ECP, particularly regarding entrance signs and the £100 parking charge

Additionally, much of the sign evidence provided are from sections of the car park not visible from where the car was parked. At least one sign has a different site number, one has outdated tariffs, and some taken after the incident date

ANPR ECP has failed to show any signs transparently warning drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which is a failure to identify its commercial intent

Landowner Authority There is no indication who the signatories are or whether they have the authority to sign on the company’s behalf. I also believe this contract was altered after it was signed, with dates recently added to authorisation instruction 5

Period Parked Photos claiming to show a car entering and leaving is insufficient evidence of a car being parked for the duration claimed

Entry & Exit photos could be any location, so ECP has failed to indisputably relate the photo to the location stated. The leaving photo is pitch-black. It identifies no car nor VRM. This cannot serve as proof of any car leaving the car park, nor any length of parking

ECP has not shown that the correct planning applications were in place prior to the date of the incident

last sentence changed as per the advice by KeithP and below 2000 at 1934 in both WORD 2007 and in WORD 2013

SamJ84

Redx wrote: »

I never said I was using word, in fact I was using Notepad++

but even in word 2007 your earlier version is over 2000 characters, including spaces , same in word 2013 too

Weird. I've got word 2016 and it's giving me totally different figures. Guess it must be wrong if you're getting the same figure from multiple sources.


Thanks for checking.

SamJ84

Appeal successful. Won on signs - the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

Browncross street car park, Euro car parks. Manchester/Salford.

Thank you to everyone for your help. I wouldn’t have won this without this forum.

---
POPLA assessment and decision
16/04/2019

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to purchase a pay and display ticket or permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that there was a frustration of contract as the payment machines were not working. They explain that the entrance sign was inadequately positioned, that the signage is not clear or legible. They advise that there is insufficient notice of the charge on the signage. The appellant advises that the signage does not provide a warning regarding the use of ANPR cameras and the data they produce. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. They advise that the PCN fails to meet the requirements of POFA as they do not provide evidence of the period parked. The appellant advises that the images used on the PCN fail to meet the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant disputes that the operator has planning permission for its signage. The appellant has provided a document containing their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle.

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to purchase a pay and display ticket or permit. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions, “Up to 2 hours £3.00, Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice, Display a valid ticket or permit clearly inside your windscreen or have a valid pay by phone session, We are using cameras to capture images of your vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry and exit 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday including bank holidays”.

The appellant advises that there was a frustration of contract as the payment machines were not working. They explain that the entrance sign was inadequately positioned, that the signage is not clear or legible. They advise that there is insufficient notice of the charge on the signage. The appellant advises that the signage does not provide a warning regarding the use of ANPR cameras and the data they produce. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. They advise that the PCN fails to meet the requirements of POFA as they do not provide evidence of the period parked. The appellant advises that the images used on the PCN fail to meet the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant disputes that the operator has planning permission for its signage.

The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded:

“…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.”

As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given
“adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows:

“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by:

(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. 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 is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any further grounds of appeal.

Coupon-mad

Browncross street car park, Euro car parks. Manchester/Salford.

Good to know POPLA have held these signs as inadequate.

:T

syn1993

Hi, I received a pcn today from eurocar parks on higher bridge st Bolton, on Feb 7th 2020 the ticket machines were out of order & I couldn’t get a ticket & never done it via phone/internet. I didn’t know it was anpr in the car park, don’t know what to do.

MistyZ

syn1993 said:

Hi, I received a pcn today from eurocar parks on higher bridge st Bolton, on Feb 7th 2020 the ticket machines were out of order & I couldn’t get a ticket & never done it via phone/internet. I didn’t know it was anpr in the car park, don’t know what to do.

Hi there.  Please start your own thread.

Also read through this thread you've posted on, it may be relevant in many ways.  And look for the Newbies' thread in the thread list.  Scroll down in that for relevant sections and have a good read of them too.  

roger_the_cabinboy

Hi folks... I'm another one who has fallen foul of Euro car parks..!!

I parked in my local small town Co-op c/p a store which I use on a more or less daily basis and I  overstayed my welcom by 15 mins.. It was dark when arriving and also when leaving and I suspect that the signs are not illuminated, will confirm this.

As a result I have received a Euro car parks NTK of £60 increasing to £100.  Something that initially struck me was the photographic inserts..? I have read that these should show the original date/time stamped image, showing vehicle in identifiable location..  Those displayed on the notice are a cropped version showing just number plate and the date/time beneath.. And... there is only one image, the picture giving the number plate as of date/time leaving is completely black..?

I have been reading other earlier threads on the MSE but cannot find a link to what is termed the 'newby FAQ'.. any suggestions and any advice would be much appreciated

TIA

RTC

Le_Kirk

There isn't a link, if you go to the first page of the forum, it is there just blow the NEW DISCUSSION button, however, here is the link: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/P1
Once you have taken in the NEWBIE sticky (it is not quick, more like a cup of tea and plate of biscuits read) please start your own discussion.