Euro car parks PCN ANPR

Ralph-y

are you attempting to do all this on a phone?


if so please try a PC/laptop ...



it will make things much easier


Ralph:cool:

C3po

Hi Ralph, yes I am trying to do this all on the phone, trying to go back and forwards to each thread, I am also trying to find a post about the pay and display machines not working and also pay by phone with capture by ANPR too as this is my issue which ECP are refusing my appeal.

Thanks

Umkomaas

Virtually impossible to use the forum to its full on a phone. A PC, laptop or decent tablet are much superior and easier to use.

Coupon-mad

Stop using the phone. This is a waste of your time and ours at the mo.

You will see a HUGE difference on a laptop.

C3po

Hi Coupon - mad

I have now managed to get access to a computer, and I see it is a lot better to deal with having read through the Newbies post on Popla, I have managed to copy some of the post templates available which corresponds with my Appeal, I hope this is right and could you guide me to correct it if any is not right thanks

here is my Popla appeal

Vehicle Registration Number MYCAR
PCN Reference MYPCN
POPLACODE: MYPOPLACODE
Issued by Euro Car Parks Limited

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) no contract with driver
2) No evidence of Landowner Authority
3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
4) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for
5) Additional Information




1.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


It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge!itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.



From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:


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

ECP has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park

I set out the relevant provisions of the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice as follows:

7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

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

I do not believe that ECP has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ECP must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.!

I therefore require ECP to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract is compliant with Paragraphs 7.1 – 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and permits ECP to make contracts with drivers in its own right, providing it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.!

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary 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.).

3. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

The Euro Car Parks evidence shows no!parking!time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice,!parking!companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Euro Car Parks to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that Euro Car Parks produces evidence in response to these points.

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 just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to the contrary.

4. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the ‘commercial intent’ of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.2 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Park signs do not comply with these requirements because the car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a “failure to identify its commercial intent”, contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

The Euro Car Park’s main sign in the car park states:

“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday including Bank holidays”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.

5. Additional Information

Euro Car Parks states that “it is prudent to check for other machines on site and obtain a ticket. In the appeal to Euro Car Parks it was specifically stated to them that both machines on the site was not working at the time. A note was placed on the dashboard of the car to make the patrolling attendants of the car park aware that both machines was out of order and there was an intention to pay. Euro Car Parks also stated that “there is also the option to use the Pay by Phone option on site”, however the sign for the pay by phone is inadequate as it is placed on a lamp post a distance away from the ticket machine and the daily charges sign.

Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that POPLA confirms that ECP has no valid claim against me and that its PCN should be cancelled and credited in full.

Yours faithfully,

Fruitcake

You seem to have missed the very long template appeal point about Inadequate Signage. You need to back this up with your own picture of the site and signage.

Make that point 1 instead of your current one.

Coupon-mad

#5 should be your first point, and not headed up so vaguely. It looks important.

Your signage point needs to include photos to illustrate that no signs can be seen from various panoramic sweeps of the car park with your camera or phone. You cannot add such evidence later and you KNOW ECP will supply photos of the signs, which will tip the balance against you.

however the sign for the pay by phone is inadequate as it is placed on a lamp post a distance away from the ticket machine and the daily charges sign.

Prove it. See what I mean? This is no good without pics.

So put photos in now (embedded into the appeal document to illustrate it like a storybook) even if it means taking another week to complete your POPLA appeal - the code will last until day 33 at the most, do you have time?

Fruitcake

Have a look at the thread by Snakes Belly where the P & D machine wasn't working and she left a note on the windscreen.
Whilst she lost in court, it only cost her £3, the charge she would have paid if she had been able to find another machine that was working.

Have a look at what the judge said about the fact that she left the note before she left the car park which he believed she would not have done if she hadn't tried to pay first.

C3po

I think I have made mistake about the signage,how do I upload a photo of the signage I have received fro ECP

KeithP

C3po wrote: »

...how do I upload a photo of the signage I have received fro ECP

Upload the image to a free webhosting site and post a link to the uploaded image here.