Appealed to ECP before reading thread

peach21190

Hi All,

I had already been rejected from the first appeal before I came to read all the Newbie thread. I have now waited to appeal to the POPLA and have a week or so left.

the various signs that are in the car park make it confusing and I wondered if that would be a valid reason for appeal to the POPLA.

I have a further picture ( Need to take another as the sun has caught some of it) that shows 4 different signs and one that says

"Free Parking
After 4:30pm
Monday to Friday"

A security notice saying that it is Managed by Savills UK

So does this mean that ECP are enforcing on behalf of Savills UK ?

if someone googles Gosforth Euro Car Parking sign then it should show up but cannot post link as new member.


Is it possible to show this picture on the forum somehow ?

The_Deep

peach21190 wrote: »

Hi All,

the various signs that are in the car park make it confusing and I wondered if that would be a valid reason for appeal to the POPLA.

Very much so

A security notice saying that it is Managed by Savills UK

So does this mean that ECP are enforcing on behalf of Savills UK ?

Yes

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.

Coupon-mad

the various signs that are in the car park make it confusing and I wondered if that would be a valid reason for appeal to the POPLA.

I have a further picture ( Need to take another as the sun has caught some of it) that shows 4 different signs and one that says

"Free Parking
After 4:30pm
Monday to Friday"

Yes that will be great evidence for POPLA.

Show us your pics in Dropbox, by sharing a link, but BREAK IT FIRST like everyone else does who is new.

peach21190

I need to get a better pic as it was a quick picture. I am going to put a draft letter in here for people to check. Need to get this in tomorrow for my appeal

dropbox.com/s/vl1y7rskuug041r/20190217_113750.jpg?dl=0

Le_Kirk

Your link made live: -

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vl1y7rskuug041r/20190217_113750.jpg?dl=0

peach21190

dropbox.com/s/xwykob996l45d52/Parking.jpeg?dl=0

Another link from the internet. As you can see there are that many signs it is confusing and to read all this before entering the car park is nearly impossible.

peach21190

Dear Sir/Madam

I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and would like to appeal against it, based on the following grounds:


1. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
2. The number of signs in this car park ensure confusion as there are various signs giving conflicting information and thus makes them unclear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
3. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and ICO Code of Practice rules for ANPR and Surveillance Cameras


1. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA, but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods for disabled people, which under the EA, must be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP. Ten minutes is not enough for disabled patrons and it is contended that the landowner must have discussed and addressed the issue of disability before allowing this operator to commence any rigid rules of parking enforcement and time allowed for the tariff.

Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

2. The number of signs in this car park ensure confusion as there are various signs giving conflicting information and thus makes them unclear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

On the signage, the two contraventions listed under the words:

''Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £70 PCN (£40 if paid within 14 days of issue)'' are nothing to do with any overstay which makes the signage ambiguous. There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case, where there was no quantifiable tariff and no disabled passenger with statutory rights.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, there various signs indicating different tariffs and information causing confusion and ensuring that large numbers fall fowl to the parking charge. The wording is crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car in a busy car park such as the one in question.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this carpark and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

3. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and ICO Code of Practice rules for ANPR and Surveillance Cameras

This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor.

Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with such rules, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

i) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

ii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers, disabled people and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and

iii) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and

iv) Lack of the Privacy Notice required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held.

The BPA CoP says at paragraph 21.4:

It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
!!!8226; be registered with the Information Commissioner
!!!8226; keep to the Data Protection Act
!!!8226; follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
!!!8226; follow the guidelines from the Information
Commissioner!!!8217;s Office on the use of CCTV and
ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.

This operator has ignored the surveillance camera rules and if they disagree they are put to strict proof of (i) to (iv) above.

It is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point.

Regards

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, might win, might not, but who cares as everyone ignores ECP if not!

Don't copy both these exemptions verbatim re a site where one makes no sense:

such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions

unknown_user

Hi,


Did you contact Savills or find out who the land owner is to complain to?


What was the outcome of this POPLA appeal?

fisherjim

unknown_user wrote: »

Hi,


Did you contact Savills or find out who the land owner is to complain to?


What was the outcome of this POPLA appeal?

The OP hasn't been on here in five months, please don't hold your breath for an answer!