Euro Car Parks POPLA appeal rebuttal of evidence

largenose

Hi all,

I received a mailed PCN for my vehicle 'overstaying' the free 2 hours at a Euro Car Parks guarded retail park between Christmas and New Year, by 22 minutes.

To date, I have complained to retailers on email and phone (no luck), sent an appeal to Euro Car Parks (no luck) and then finally, a POPLA appeal. Euro Car Parks ('ECP' from herein) have come back with evidence that I now need to challenge.

Foolishly I have left this a bit late and have until the end of today to formulate my rebuttal of this evidence.

To write my POPLA appeal, I spent time looking through the various successful appeals on the forum. I didn't post it here for opinion, perhaps feeling everyone is busy enough without reading another one. However I think the time has come for me to seek your advice, please!

I challenged ECP on the following points, as per many of the successful appeals on the forum:

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
5. No Evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012.
6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance.
7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate.
8. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for requirements.

My full appeal was some 19 pages long with lots of detail and photographs sourced from Google Street View.


ECP have come back and challenged with evidence. On the above points, their responses are (in summary):

1. Grace period - they simply state that the vehicle was parked 22 minutes longer than the maximum period allowed. No more than that. Could this be my main argument?
2. Signage - they have included many pictures of signs that all look pretty convincing. The 'offense' was recorded after dark, they have pictures of the signs during darkness hours where they are visible. My argument was that they are not visible to the driver without looking away from the road ahead and one of them was shielded by a car park gate as evidenced in Street View images. They rebut this with photos showing the signs as visible and angled towards the driver. I am not able to visit the site to take my own photos.
3. Driver - As keeper of the vehicle, no identification of driver has been made. They replied with standard blurb about this.
4. Landowner authority - they provided a signed and dated (2017) copy of the contract with the landowner. Looks legit.
5. Evidence of Period Parked - they have provided timestamped photos of the vehicle allgedly entering and exiting, although the number plate is not visible. Separate tightly cropped images of the number plate, without a timestamp, are provided. I could argue that this does not prove anything? I could also argue that this does not prove the time parked - only entry and exit?
6. Vehicle images - see point 5 above.
7. ANPR system not reliable - they replied with standard blurb.
8. ANPR data and what it's used for - no specific response.

I can post full versions on my POPLA appeal and their response, if needed.

Very much appreciate anyone's help with this. I'd really prefer it not to go to court and to win at this stage.

Many thanks.

Fruitcake

You won't get anywhere with an overstay exceeding 21 minutes.

You need to pick holes in everything they have relied upon, especially signs and contract.

Please show us a copy of the alleged contract with the landowner.
Upload the image to a web hosting site such as postimages, tintpic, dropbox etcetera, then paste the URL here, but change https to hxxps.

Have you identified the landowner to confirm that it is the same as that on the contract?
You have left this very late but it is vitally important you know who the landowner is. A copy of the Land Registry entry will cost you a few quid. You could also ask the council who pays the non-domestic business rates for the site, but you might not get the reply in time.

You have six days to rebut PoPLA evidence because you lose the day the evidence is sent.

Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Coupon-mad

Foolishly I have left this a bit late and have until the end of today to formulate my rebuttal of this evidence.

Do you? The portal only keeps the window open for SIX days not seven, from when POPLA emailed you about this evidence, because that day was 'day one'.

You will probably lose v ECP re a retail park overstay as there is nothing to distinguish your case from Beavis. I can't see a winning point here so I just want you to know that and relax/not panic when the almost inevitable 'refused' decision arrives!

Grace period - they simply state that the vehicle was parked 22 minutes longer than the maximum period allowed. No more than that. Could this be my main argument?

Forget it. 22 mins doesn't fall within grace periods.

Signage - they have included many pictures of signs that all look pretty convincing. The 'offense' was recorded after dark, they have pictures of the signs during darkness hours where they are visible. My argument was that they are not visible to the driver without looking away from the road ahead and one of them was shielded by a car park gate as evidenced in Street View images. They rebut this with photos showing the signs as visible and angled towards the driver. I am not able to visit the site to take my own photos.

They win on this point I suspect, as they showed legible signs in the dark.

Driver - As keeper of the vehicle, no identification of driver has been made. They replied with standard blurb about this.

And they can, because they use the POFA in their PCNs.

Landowner authority - they provided a signed and dated (2017) copy of the contract with the landowner. Looks legit.

OK, and that's who you need to complain to, not individual retailers.

Evidence of Period Parked - they have provided timestamped photos of the vehicle allgedly entering and exiting, although the number plate is not visible. Separate tightly cropped images of the number plate, without a timestamp, are provided. I could argue that this does not prove anything? I could also argue that this does not prove the time parked - only entry and exit?

Forget it.

Vehicle images - see point 5 above.
ANPR system not reliable - they replied with standard blurb.
ANPR data and what it's used for - no specific response.

There is nothing that will win this for you, IMHO, unless POPLA agree with you on the signs.

You need to complain to the retail park (who signed the contract) about penalising people for Christmas shopping when the car park is busy and the signs are dark.

largenose

Thanks for the responses guys, very helpful. Even though it doesn't sound hopeful.

Do you? The portal only keeps the window open for SIX days not seven, from when POPLA emailed you about this evidence, because that day was 'day one'.

Evidence was submitted 22/1/20. The 'Please provide your comments on the operator evidence.' form on the POPLA site is still there and inviting me to enter comments and hit submit. I obviously don't want to test it any further until I have something to type in that box, as you only appear to get one chance?

'Landowner' contract: hxxps://imgur.com/a/Nu95xi8

They state here that the 'client' is Workman LLP who are building consultants and property managers. The owner is, I think, CBRE Global Investors (according to hxxps://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/Cathedral-Retail-Park-Norwich).

Can upload pics of signs too if it helps.

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/a/Nu95xi8

Looks like it is signed by Thomas Nuttall at Workman LLP, who I could see has a Linked In page that shows he was working there in 2017 and is still there now.

I would try this email which I worked out from other Workman email address formats:

thomas.nuttall@workman.co.uk

Complain, give him the retail site location, the date of event, your name and the PCN number, and lay it on thick how distressed you are and that ECP are using his signature to force through POPLA appeals and to sue genuine customers of the retail park who were merely held up at the tills and in the car park because it was a busy time. Is that what the landowner wants?

Do that today, as well as the comments, and see which one works. Do not wait and see how POPLA goes as you are going to lose that.

largenose

Thanks, Coupon-mad. Very grateful to have you looking at this.

I will email this guy and see what happens.

Regarding comments to their evidence, what would you suggest I argue?

Here are some images of the signs: hxxps://imgur.com/a/7Fqt2vG.

My argument is that the one which clearly states the time limit was obstructed by the yellow metal headroom gate and was not visible to the driver on entry. However their photos, which were taken AFTER the 'offence' show this gate closed, and the signs moved and more visible. Any mileage in that, do you think?

nosferatu1001

Offence.

You can try, but unless you can show this clear difference in picture form, youre getting nowehere. And of course, you cannot upload new evidence, so it needs t ohave been in your oriignal submission

Your photoless asserion is worth nothing compared to them having photos. Nothing.

largenose

Offence.

Spelling mistake corrected!

You can try, but unless you can show this clear difference in picture form, youre getting nowehere. And of course, you cannot upload new evidence, so it needs t ohave been in your oriignal submission

Your photoless asserion is worth nothing compared to them having photos. Nothing.

I have provided an image from Google Street View in the imgur link provided to illustrate my point about the sign being obstructed by the 'max headroom' gate. Does this count for nothing?

Coupon-mad

My argument is that the one which clearly states the time limit was obstructed by the yellow metal headroom gate and was not visible to the driver on entry. However their photos, which were taken AFTER the 'offence' show this gate closed, and the signs moved and more visible. Any mileage in that, do you think?

I have provided an image from Google Street View in the imgur link provided to illustrate my point about the sign being obstructed by the 'max headroom' gate. Does this count for nothing?

It's your only likely wining point, so yes it is the thing to hammer home with POPLA and discredit their images and say something like:

'however their photos, which were taken AFTER the 'offence' show this gate closed, and the signs moved and more visible. The fact they have moved the signs since the event shows they were inadequate at the time of the parking charge, as per my evidence.

Fruitcake

Whilst PoPLA will ignore it, the contract does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 as it does not have two authorised signatures from each party, or a director's signature and witness from each party.

It also only authorises court claims against a driver, not a keeper. A minor pint but worth noting if it gets to court, as is the point about contract signatures.

Definitely follow C-m's advice about contacting the landowner/land agent as soon as humanly possible.

Don't forget, if you lose at PoPLA, the decision is not binding on you so there is no requirement to pay. That would only change if a judge so orders it.

Once you have done the landowner complaint and evidence rebuttal, start on your complaint to your MP.

largenose

Thanks Fruitcake. Should I include your points about the contract in the POPLA evidence rebuttal? Or save them for a potential court case, at the risk ECP might get wind of it in advance?

I have emailed the landlord/managing agent.