Euro car parks PCN ANPR

Redx

you are advised to upload it as a pdf to the bin icon after selecting OTHER, not by email or royal mail

C3po

Thanks Redx, I have ticked other and now it is requesting my details is this correct and is my draft ready for sending now or does it need amending?

Coupon-mad

C3po wrote: »

I don’t know what you mean Coupon - mad about who cares ?

Who cares if anyone wins or loses at POPLA v ECP, given that nothing happens?

I mean, it doesn't matter. Give it a go but no worries if it doesn't work. NO PAYING!

Of course the POPLA page needs your details. But put zeros for the phone number.

C3po

Email received from popla asking me to check the evidence sent in from ECP, not sure what I am suppose to do now, it says to check the evidence and reply within 7 days

KeithP

You now need to read again the appropriate part of post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Read the section headed...

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

C3po

Thanks Keith, I will have a read now

C3po

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NamePaul Garrity
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: They state that the PCN is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. They explain that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursing is the driver. They advise that no contract was entered into between the operator and the driver or registered keeper. They stat that there was no facility to make a cash payment as both payment machines were not working. They explain that the signage did not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They state that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are neither reliable nor accurate. They explain that the signs do not transparently warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he is the registered keeper. I will there-fore be considering his responsibility as keeper of the vehicle. When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have reviewed the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “…24 hour pay & display/pay by phone car park. Charges apply at all times…Mon – Fri Up to 12 hours £9.80…Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice…Display a valid ticket or season ticket clearly inside your windscreen or have a valid pay by phone session…We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and to calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday (including bank holidays)… ”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 08:14, and exiting at 15:26, totalling a stay of seven hours and 12 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate a search on its online systems using the appellant’s vehicle registration, confirming that no payment was made for the appellants vehicle. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed these as follows: They state that the PCN is not compliant with POFA. They explain that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursing is the driver. POFA is used to transfer liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle, when the driver has not been identified. In order to transfer liability for the outstanding amount of the parking charge to the registered keeper, the operator will need to demonstrate strict compliance with the requirements of the POFA. POFA relies on the operator providing certain information within strict timescales to the registered keeper within its Notice to Keeper. In order to establish that the correct processes have been followed, I will need to examine the Notice to Keeper, which was given to the registered keeper of the vehicle. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that it complies with POFA. They advise that no contract was entered into between the operator and the driver or registered keeper. When parking in private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the site for a reasonable period of time. In this instance, the vehicle was on site for seven hours and 12 minutes therefore, I am satisfied that a parking contract was entered into between the driver and parking operator. They stat that there was no facility to make a cash payment as both payment machines were not working. While I appreciate the appellants comments, a requirement of this car park is that payment must be made to park and these terms apply 24 hours a day seven days a week. If the driver finds that they are unable to comply with the stated terms and conditions of the site, it is their responsibility to seek alternative parking to avoid receiving a PCN. I note that the site also offers a pay by phone option. Under the circumstances described by the appellant, I would have expected them to either exit the site and seek alternative parking or make payment using the pay by phone facility. They explain that the signage did not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA Code Of Practice states in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided several images of the car park signs and I consider these signs are “conspicuous” and are “easy to see, read and understand” and I am satisfied that the signs meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. They state that the ANPR cameras are neither reliable nor accurate. POPLA is an evidence based service and I can only base my decision on the evidence provided. ANPR technology is generally reliable and unless POPLA is presented with evidence that proves the technology is inaccurate, we work on the basis that the technology was working without issue. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence or explanation as to why he feels the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. They explain that the signs do not transparently warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for. The signs state that “We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and to calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday (including bank holidays)… ” and I am satisfied that the signs clearly and transparently advise of the reason that any captured data will be used for. I note that the appellant provided video evidence in support of their appeal. After reviewing this, I do not consider it to have any impact on the validity of the PCN. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver failed to pay the parking tariff, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Redx

So nothing you can do except wait for 6 years to see if ECP try a court claim and defend it before a judge if it gets that far

If you get debt collector letters , you can disregard them

Citizens advice cannot help you in the meantime , but a landowner cancellation is ALWAYS your best option and always was

C3po

Thanks for your reply, Redx so just ignore debt collectors letters, what do you mean about landowner cancellation and how do i go about that one, thanks

Redx

C3po wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, Redx so just ignore debt collectors letters, what do you mean about landowner cancellation and how do i go about that one, thanks

The newbies thread tells everyone that a complaint to the landowner , or managing agent , or retailer (depending on where it is) should be made asap following a PCN , regardless

So any or all of them

The second stage is an Appeal to the PPC , as keeper usually

The third stage is appeal to Popla , if available

So you should find out the landowner or managing agent if it was a retail park with multiple businesses , or retailer if it was say Tesco , and complain and give them the PCN reference and a copy of it , in order to get it cancelled by those who employed the parking company in the first place

The squeaky wheel gets the oil , plus this is just common sense too

So by asking me that question you appear to have missed out step one and gone straight to step 2 and then to step 3 , unless ECP own the car park , which is possible but unlikely