Euro car parks - Solihull

dipesh41

Location: M&B - Saracens Head - Solihull

Hello everyone,

This is my first time posting in these forums.

I recently returned from holiday to 2 parking charge notices.One I have appealled for but this one I'd like some advice if anyone can help.

I parked in a communal car park that seemed to be shared with a pub and a small hotel i think.
The weather was really bad and it was the closest car park to where we were going to eat.
I paid for an hour which would have been sufficient time but my daughter had an unfortunate 'womens problems' incident and had to go into the toilets to sort herself out which was the reason why we went over the time period.

So because we went over by 15 minutes they have sent me a charge notice of £85, £50 if paid sooner but that date has passed as we were on holiday.

Does anyone know if the grace period is 10 or 15 minutes?
Realistically what are my chances of being successful in the appeal as paying either of those sums are ludicrous for going over in these circumstances.

I'd be most grateful if anyone can offer advice

Redx

2 grace periods exist , one before payment of maybe 5 to 10 minutes and 10 minutes or more to depart , so 15 minutes is reasonable for the pair

download the BPA CoP and read clause 13 regarding grace periods

a good popla appeal should win

appeal first as keeper , not as driver , to ECP using the blue text template from the newbies thread , unchanged


those sums are standard and have been so for almost a decade

The_Deep

Read MC1

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/car_parks_and_parking/penalty_charges/how_to_appeal_against_a_pcn/mitigating_circumstances.aspx

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, as it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]

dipesh41

Thanks for responding!

Just to be clear about a popla appeal, is that something I do after my initial appeal has been rejected by ECP?

In my appeal to ECP I used the blue template, am I to assume that they will most likely reject it?
And is that when I do a popla appeal?

Thanks in advance.

Redx

Correct

Correct

Yes

dipesh41

Hello again,

As expected the appeal was rejected for the following reasons:
 Your vehicle entered at 13:42 and exited at 14:57, a total stay of 1 hour and 15 minutes.
 The P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking and therefore the
notice has been issued correctly and will remain payable.
 The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) does not alter the principle of driver liability.
What it does do, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking
charges when the landowner or their agent, the parking operator does not know who the
driver was at the time.
 The creditor/operator must follow the procedures set out in POFA Schedule 4 to achieve the
benefits of keeper liability.
 Euro Car Parks is a member of the BPA which is an Accredited Trade Association with the
DVLA and has an approved Code of Practice.
 Please be advised that there are a number of signs around the car park indicating the
restrictions of the site directly complying with the BP.
 Please be advised that we strictly adhere to the BPA Code of Practice – where as a company
we have to have all necessary documents in place. Therefore if you decide to process our
rejection through POPLA certain extracts of these documents will be made available
 Prompt payment is now advisable.

Now it looks like I went over the 15 mins grace period by mere seconds.

It has been said that a good POPLA appeal should get the fine cancelled, am I copy/pasting a template from a thread on this forum? If so could someone specify which one.

Many Thanks

Umkomaas

How to develop a POPLA appeal is comprehensively covered in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for POPLA split grace periods.

Copy one based on setting the appeal out to have two sub headings near the start:

(1) talking about the minutes spent (say 5 or 6 or more, before paying) 'on arrival' and
(2) talking about the minutes - not more than ten - driving out 'on exit'.

Can you tell how many minutes are alleged on arrival and how many on exit? i.e. how is the 15 mins split? That's what you need to go to town on, for POPLA to get it.

Show us your draft.

You will find ones to copy from if you do the above search and PLEASE do not stop at the first one you find...the point is to find several, read several different posts where a POPLA appeal is set out like the above, and realise the pattern of what to put.

dipesh41

Hello again good people.

I'm actually struggling more than I thought I would when it comes to navigating through the forums to find other successful popla appeals... There's just so many threads!

Now when it comes to structuring the appeal online am I setting it out as a letter still?
Starting with a list of bullet points as my reasons for appealing and then going into detail for each part?

As my main arguement will be about grace periods I will show some of my findings from other posts and was hoping for some feedback if this is relevant or not:

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park. In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
There is no evidence that Euro Car Parks have upheld the minimum grace periods as set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded their stipulated period by only 13 minutes, a sum of 10 minutes prior to determining whether to park, and 10 minutes after the parking period had ended.
The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) 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.
The Notice to Keeper states:
“On [DATE ]the vehicle: XXXXXXX entered XXXXXXX, at [ENTRY TIME]and departed at [EXIT TIME] on [DATE].”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Euro Car Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with 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 ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that ECP produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.
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 21.1 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 Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because this 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 Parks’ main sign in the XXXX car park states:
“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry and exit at all times 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. The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states (see Figure 2):
“This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue).”
In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.
This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: 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.
and Paragraph 69:
Contract terms that may have different meanings:
(1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':
LINK
Misleading omissions:
6.-(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)-
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.
7) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

Neither the Notice to Keeper nor appeal rejection from Euro Car Parks contain any photographic or any other evidence in support of Euro Car Parks request for payment.
The image of a sign provided by Euro Car Parks in their rejection note of my appeal does not contain a date and time stamp, or specify the precise location of the sign. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself when viewed from a vehicle or on foot from below or in poorly lit areas or times of the day. It should be noted with regard to the purported ‘Time observed’ (xx) and ‘Issue Time’ (xx), that the official sunset on Wednesday 27th November 2019 was at 15.57. The image of the sign clearly does not accurately reflect the conditions at the time it is alleged to have been present nor does it state its location in relation to the vehicle in question. The lettering in red is illegible even in bright daylight as depicted in the supplied image. At sunset, tiny red lettering against a yellow background would be impossible to read from a vehicle or on foot from below.
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.
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.
The signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, without suitable lighting, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being 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.

[Image of initial sign when entering, not well lit, blurry, and high.]
Figure 1: Photograph of signage in the carpark at similar hour to when the offence occurred.
[Additional Sign with different colours and wording]
Figure 2: Additional signage in the carpark.
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.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
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.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''
So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park 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.
So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Thanks in advance

KeithP

Now when it comes to structuring the appeal online am I setting it out as a letter still?
Starting with a list of bullet points as my reasons for appealing and then going into detail for each part?

I'll just address that one point.

Have you yet read the many example PoPLA appeals linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread?

There are several fully illustrated examples there which cannot fail to give you an idea about layout and presentation.

Here's a link to just one of them - running to 29 pages:

www.dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0

Umkomaas

That huge wall of poorly paragraphed text, running to over 3,000 words, is almost impossible to read, and most regulars, including me, won't risk a migraine trying to plough through it.

We're reading hundreds of posts every day, have some thought for us.

Are you copying and pasting directly from MS Word? If so, you're likely to get your IP address banned by MSE Towers, preventing any further posts from you.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706338/please-dont-copy-and-paste-from-word-outlook