We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
ECP NTK for overstayed on free parking
Comments
-
Don't do that. What's wrong with 'we'.
Direct the complaint THIS WEEK to the retail park managers, usually easy to Google.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi All,
So to provide you update. Home again ignored my request and send back to operator of the parking. Halfords manager contact me but was unable to do anything. He said he would be Al e to help only if they do some work to a car and that took longer than allowed parking time.
I also received finally the Popla decision. They rejected my appeal. I will post details of the decision soon, just need to anonymize it first.
I guess now I will start receiving messages from dept collector company? Do they have ane legal power to collect that PCN?0 -
Hi All,
For reference here is decision:DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameAdele BrophyAssessor summary of operator caseThe operator’s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to vehicle parked longer than the maximum period allowed.
Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal these are The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
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 signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for, which breaches the BPA Code of Practice.
No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park. The operator has provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionAfter reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
The terms and conditions of the site are, “Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £90 Parking Charge Notice. Maximum stay 90 minutes Monday – Sunday (06:00 to 20:59). No return within 2 hours…”. The site is managed by ANPR cameras the appellant’s vehicle was captured entering the site at 09:23 and exiting at 11:28, totalling a stay of 2 hours 5 minutes. The operator issued a PCN due to vehicle parked longer than the maximum period allowed. The appellant has advised that 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 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 Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows, “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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”. As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. 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.
The Act then moved on to define “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 sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.
Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The appellant has advised that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site 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”. The operator has provided a copy of a contract, after reviewing this I am satisfied the operator had landowner authority.
The appellant has advised that the ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate. While I acknowledge the appellants comments to support why they do not believe the ANPR system to be reliable, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR images captured on the date of the parking event I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. The appellant has advised that the Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for. In response to this, the operator has provided evidence of signage which advises motorists how it manages ANPR data and what it is used for.
As such, I am satisfied the signage shows is fully compliant with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that the operator has not allowed a grace period.
For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the motorist entered the site, and left the vehicle left after 2 hours 5 minutes.
Therefore, I am satisfied the motorist would have had sufficient time to review the terms and conditions and has entered into a contract with the operator, the motorist was therefore required to comply with the terms and conditions.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining within the site, the motorist accepted the terms and conditions.
On this occasion, by remaining in excess of the maximum stay, the motorist has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.
0 -
I've also received letter from Debt Recovery Plus company asking for a payment. Their request is for £160, which is much higher than the PCN itself. Based on Newbie thread I'm going to wait how the situation will develop.
0 -
Please edit that PoPLA decision by hitting enter and creating paragraphs. Nobody is likely to read such a massive wall of text otherwise.
You are now in ignore mode unless you get real court papers. Come back to this thread after reading the relevant parts of the NEWBIES if that happens.
Save everything for the next six years.
Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam?
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks2 -
Don't worry,, POPLA is an outdated dinosaur due to be replaced by a government appeals service soon.
This assessor simply does not understand and is ignorant .......
The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin.
WRONG .......The Supreme court in the parking eye case ruled .....198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''
No mention is made about a profit margin ???
POPLA is not a law and mostly judges will go against their decision
You can complain to POPLA about the lack of knowledge by the assessor
You just wait now, the PPC might pass it to debt collector who you IGNORE
Let us know how this progresses1 -
Ignore a loss at POPLA. See what happens, and keep all letters. ECP are not likely to try court for one PCN.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards