ECP vs hire car visit to petrol station; appeal allowed

Tank40

Brilliant! I was a bit perplexed as to why they only supplied part of a document, too.
Only a few sentances to write, will do it at work tonight. Is it worth posting my reply to ECP's response here?

Fruitcake

Yes, but it would be better if we could see what they said so your rebuttal is in context.

Don't expect to win on the contract signature points as PoPLA won't understand and may well just say, they have got a contract so it must be OK, but include it anyway.

If the contract is incomplete then say so.

Redx

Yes , but make sure it's concise and bullet points
You only have 2000 characters , so no waffle , no restating the popla appeal , no full stops , no rants

Tank40

Fruitcake wrote: »

Yes, but it would be better if we could see what they said so your rebuttal is in context.

No problem, got their text onto one page:
https://imgur.com/eFKFPRi
The preamble to this was copies of NTKs etc & the initialled declaration that the appellant had been sent all docs required by POPLA (well, maybe they have now but not when they should have).

Points 1) to 6) mentioned were the hirer's POPLA appeal point headings.
Figure 1 referred to are alleged to be the 'original stills' of the hire vehicle entering & exiting with a timestamp matching the typed dates & times used on the PCN. One of them is recognisably the location in question but it's not part of the timestamp. Needless to say the digitally altered number plate closeups were what was used on the PCN.
Figure 2 section 7 referred to is an aerial view of the site with sign locations marked.
Figure 3 referred to is merely a sample PCN with a bunch of stuff highlighted. How that proves compliance I know not.
Pages 23-36 also not reproduced here are photos of the site with various ECP signs in varying degrees of visibility.

The 'contract' doesn't have a map, is an address sufficient?
Will post the hirer's reply soon (ECP response submitted 23/12 so have to submit reply 30/12 on Monday).

Coupon-mad

(ECP response submitted 23/12 so have to submit reply 30/12 on Monday).

NO, it is SIX days not seven, as was already pointed out. 23rd was 'day one'.

Tank40

Coupon-mad wrote: »

NO, it is SIX days not seven, as was already pointed out. 23rd was 'day one'.

Fair point, I wonder how many other dimwits like me got caught out like that!

Anyway, this is what I'm going to go with later on:

The appellant wishes to point out some inadequacies in the evidence pack supplied by ECP, case ref XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

page 2
"I confirm that the appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with current POPLA requirements KW [computer typed "signature"] 23/12/19 date"
The appellant assumes from the date that "KW" (whoever that may be) is referring to the evidence pack and not any other evidence which was or was not sent to the hirer.

page 3
Case Summary
"An official appeal representation was received on the 09 October 2019 where HIRER NAME stated that no NTH had been issued". Euro Car Parks then added (among other statements):
"Your vehicle was parked longer than 20 minutes, therefore the notice was issued correctly and remains payable".
The appellant would like to point out that this is neither proven nor logical.

page 7
Registered Keeper Details and Liability Trail
"HIRER NAME then appealed the PCN and did not confirm that he was the driver on the day in question. As no details of the driver have been provided the liability remains with HIRER NAME, the hirer.
The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by both the BPA and the IPC and we have confirmation that our PCN (NTK/NTO) and has been approved as compliant with POFA.
The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by Gladstones Solicitors...regards signage and adhering to POFA and both code of practice".
The appellant would like to state that the two concluding statements are completely without merit but without repeating my entire POPLA (and initial appeal), hirer liability has already been forfeited by ECP.

p8
"Reason For Appeal: We are a vehicle hire company, please can you transfer liability to the driver HIRER NAME & ADDRESS"
The appellant would like to iterate that these were the words of an employee of the car hire company and that the driver has not, nor will he/she be identified.

page 14-36
ECP Response to POPLA appeal
Signage
ECP admit that under the BPA CoP 18.3, signs containing parking terms must be placed so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking and that they should be conspicuous, legible, easy to see, read and understand. A driver stopping at the airline only to discover it was out of order before getting out of the vehicle (as the hirer believes happened in this case) could not be expected to notice or be able to read the sign on the opposite side of the forecourt (shown on p30), nor the sign which is out of view behind and well above the windows of a car in that location (shown on p32).
Furthermore, ECP have not responded to my technical points that the entrance sign (where one exists) is unfit under BPA guidelines, other than to say "it is visible".
As ECP have not challenged my detailed assertion that the entrance signs (where present) are inadequate, the appellant suggests that ECP have conceded this point and no contract can exist between ECP and the driver of the vehicle in question at this site.

Hirer/Keeper liability
Rather than responding to detailed points regarding keeper liability raised in both the initial and POPLA appeals and pursuing the driver (whomsoever that may be), ECP have instead provided a template PCN (fig 3 page 18) with some areas of text highlighted as "proof" that the PCN is a POFA compliant "notice to keeper". As ECP have not challenged my detailed assertion that the "notice to hirer" is not compliant with POFA or BPA code of practice with any meaningful evidence, the appellant suggests that ECP must have conceded this point and that the appeal could be upheld solely on these grounds.

No evidence of period parked
ECP have not challenged the detailed explanation that entrance and exit times are not considered to be times of parking and therefore the appellant suggests that ECP must have conceded this point and that the appeal could be upheld solely on these grounds.

Photgraphic evidence not compliant
ECP have not explained why cropped and digitally altered photographs were used as evidence on the PCN. Furthermore on page 16 of the evidence pack, the size of pixels in the 'entering' image of the front of the vehicle in question are much larger than those of the 'exit' image, leading the appellant to believe that the 'entering' image in the evidence pack has again been digitally altered to enlarge it for clarity or, due to the 12 metre width of the entrance ordinarily covered by the camera, so as not to show an exiting vehicle obscuring the ECP "entrance sign" (such as it is).
The use of digitally altered images as evidence is contrary to BPA CoP 20.5a and the appellant respectfully suggests that the appeal should be upheld solely on these grounds.

No authority from landowner
The alleged contract is incomplete and has not been executed in accordance with Companies Act 2006, section 44 (1) (b) because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (2) and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph (3). Only one signature from each company has been provided and the position of each person within their company has not been given so it cannot be presumed either signatory is so authorised in accordance with the act.
Since the alleged contract fails the requirements of the Companies Act it is not valid as a contract and the claimant is not authorised to issue charges in their own name or to issue court claims in their own name in respect of the location in question.
This is also a failure under BPA code of practice 7.1 to 7.4 to operate within a contract with the landowner and the appellant respectfully suggests that the appeal could be upheld solely on these grounds.

ANPR unreliable
ECP incorrectly state that all ANPR cameras used are compliant under home office approval framework as stated under NAAS/NASP. This raises doubts as to whether ECP's ANPR system is adequate as it must, however, be compliant under NAS/NASPLA framework.

Combining these inadequacies and misconceptions in the ECP evidence pack with the appellant's POPLA appeal, the appellant respectfully request that the appeal be upheld.

Might be a problem. 1053 words and 6000 characters! If I send it as a pdf to info@popla.co.uk, will they bother reading it?

Umkomaas

Do not send that in. They will not accept a pdf and the portal window will fail to record anything beyond 2,000 characters.

I don't understand why you've exceeded 2,000 when that is the max stated by and acceptable to POPLA.

Tank40

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do not send that in. They will not accept a pdf and the portal window will fail to record anything beyond 2,000 characters.

I don't understand why you've exceeded 2,000 when that is the max stated by and acceptable to POPLA.

I just wrote what I wanted to say to see how big it ended up with no idea how 2000 characters would look like. Then I read on this forum you could email a pdf in with a note in the comments box (but admittedly, they did end up losing it on occasions or letting the dog eat it). Fair enough, I'll whittle it down for them.

Tank40

Here you go. 1662 character count:

Presumably the date that "KW" refers to is the evidence pack and not any other communication with the hirer.

"Your vehicle was parked longer than 20 minutes, therefore the notice was issued correctly and remains payable": Neither proven nor logical.

"BPA, IPC & Gladtones have confirmed that our PCN is compliant with POFA": Statements are without merit; hirer liability has been forfeited by ECP.

A driver stopping near the airline for example would not even notice the sign on opposite (p30), nor the one above & behind car windows in that location (p32).
ECP ignored points about inadequate entrance signage except to say "it is visible".

A template PCN (fig 3 p18) with areas of text highlighted is bizarrely offered as proof that the PCN in question was POFA compliant.

No evidence of period parked: ECP have not challenged this.

ECP have not explained why digitally altered photographs were used in the PCN. Also on p16, the size of pixels in the 'entering' image of the front of the vehicle in question are much larger than those of the 'exit' image, leading the appellant to believe that the 'entering' image in the evidence pack has again been digitally altered to enlarge it for clarity or, due to the 12 metre width of the entrance ordinarily covered by the camera, so as not to show an exiting vehicle obscuring the ECP "entrance sign" (such as it is).

The alleged contract is incomplete and does not comply with Companies Act 2006 section 44(1)-(3). No positions held, it cannot be presumed either signatory is authorised and is not witnessed where necessary.

ECP statement raises doubts about ANPR system as must be compliant under NAS/NASPLA framework.

Tank40

Uploaded to POPLA...let's see what happens now.