Euro Car Parks POPLA appeal rebuttal of evidence

largenose

I've submitted the rebuttal as I had to get it done sharpish. Let's see where it gets me. Thanks again for those that helped.

My response:

Grace period:
No details of a grace period are given.

Signage:
With regards to the supplied photograph timestamped '16/01/20 - 16:41:54' showing the entrance and approach to the car park - please compare this to the image I provided of the same angle (figure 4 in my POPLA appeal document). In the image I supplied, the yellow max headroom limiter gate was open and therefore obstructing a parking sign located under the 5mph sign. This sign is obstructed from view and it is impossible to see what is behind the gate. Furthermore it is not angled towards drivers entering the car park without them diverting their attention from the road ahead, contravening BPA code of practice appendix B as stated in my appeal. This is the case in both ECP's supplied image and mine.

However, ECP's supplied 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. There is no evidence to suggest the contrary.

In addition, the sign shown in the photograph timestamped '23/07/19 - 09:26:56' has not been indicated on a map or plan and there is no evidence provided to prove that this sign even exists in this car park. It could be from any car park or location. It is possible that this is the sign hidden by the gate that was open. If that is the case, the driver could not have seen it, as it was hidden by the opened gate. No other signage adequately displays the time limit in clear enough letters.

Landowner authority:
ECP have supplied an appendix of a contract (and not a whole contract) with a managing agent of the land, NOT the landowner. Furthermore, the contract allows '...ECP to take legal action to recover charges from DRIVERS charged for unauthorised parking'. No driver has been identified, only an owner. Therefore this contract is not legally binding in this circumstance.

largenose

The POPLA decision is back and it's not good, as predicted. I've pasted it below for reference.

So, as I understand it, I now stand to receive a load of debt collection letters, and finally a court date. I must admit, I'm not sure I have enough time to contest this in court or have the hunger to do so for what it might cost me if I lose. it sounds like I have to attend court, and will I receive a CCJ against my name or some kind of record for this? And realistically, what are the chances of winning in court when POPLA have ruled I simply overstayed? Is a court case guaranteed? Do we know roughly as a percentage how many of these end up in court with Euro Car Parks?

Wish I'd just never bl**dy parked there now.


Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Ami Edwards

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding maximum allowed stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that a grace period has not been allowed. The appellant states the signage is inadequate. The appellant states the operator hasn’t proven it is pursuing the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. The appellant states the operator hasn’t proven it has landowner authority. The appellant states the PCN is not complaint with PoFA 2012. The appellant states the images of the vehicle are not complaint with the BPA requirements. The appellant states the ANPR systems are unreliable. The appellant states the signage does not warn drivers of ANPR technology being used. The appellant has provided no evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant appealed as the registered keeper. They have not identified themselves as being the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I have considered the PCN under the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. I have reviewed the PCN and I am satisfied it was issued in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012. I am therefore satisfied the operator is entitled to pursue the registered keeper for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle XXXXXXX entering the site at 17:04 and exiting at 19:26 totalling a stay of 2 hours and 22 minutes spent at site. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE ...MAXIMUM STAY 2 HOURS” The appellant states that a grace period has not been allowed. The British Parking Association (BPA) has outlined a Code of Practice that all parking operators are expected to adhere to. Paragraph 13 of the Code of Practice discusses Grace Periods. The code of practice states: “13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.” This clause is specific to sites where parking is not normally permitted. As parking is permitted at this site, this clause is irrelevant. “13.4 You 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.” The appellant has over stayed by 22 minutes. Without any supporting evidence or explanation I do not believe it is reasonable to allow a Grace Period over double the above stated time. The appellant states the signage is inadequate. . Paragraph 18 of the Code of Practice discusses signage. Paragraph 18.1 states: “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Paragraph 18.3 states: “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 photographic evidence of the signage at the car park. This includes a photographs taken at night showing adequate street lighting. Having reviewed this evidence, I am satisfied it meets the above requirements and is adequate to notify motorists of the parking terms. The appellant states the operator hasn’t proven it is pursuing the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. The appellant also states the PCN is not complaint with PoFA 2012. However, operators are able to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle, under PoFA 2012, if the specific driver is not known. I have already discussed above that the PCN meets the requirements of PoFA 2012. The appellant states the operator hasn’t proven it has landowner authority. Paragraph 7 of the Code of Practice discusses landowner authority. Paragraph 7.1 states: “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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.” Paragraph 22.16B of the Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. The appellant states the images of the vehicle are not complaint with the BPA requirements. However, POPLA is satisfied the images have been time and date stamped and meets BPA requirements. The appellant states the ANPR systems are unreliable. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, POPLA will on occasion, receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, POPLA must consider if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator’s evidence pack. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence that shows the vehicle itself was not on site for the duration captured by the ANPR cameras. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. The appellant states the signage does not warn drivers of ANPR technology being used. Paragraph 21 discusses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Section 21.1 states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” The signage 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”. Therefore, POPLA is satisfied the above requirement has been met. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant exceeded maximum allowed stay, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

nosferatu1001

ECP did court what, 6 times last year? maybe a little  more? So far from g'teed
If you lose at court AND fail to pay within the deadline specified, usually 1 month, then the CCJ is recorded. Taking cash with you on th edya is one g'teed way for this not to happen - their rep MUST accept it. 
Even if you went to court theres a good success rate. 

Coupon-mad

So, as I understand it, I now stand to receive a load of debt collection letters, and finally a court date. I must admit, I'm not sure I have enough time to contest this in court or have the hunger to do so for what it might cost me if I lose.

If you went to court and lost a case at a hearing but used our advice, you'd pay the £100 plus £50 court fees.  The risk is tiny because ECP almost never try court and we win 99% of PPC cases anyway.

it sounds like I have to attend court,

Unlikely with ECP, don't hold your breath and laugh at debt collector letters.

and will I receive a CCJ against my name or some kind of record for this?

Nope, not even if you lost at a hearing, as long as in the meantime you tell ECP if you move house, so you never miss any letters, just in case.   We put people at no CCJ risk.

And realistically, what are the chances of winning in court when POPLA have ruled I simply overstayed?

99% win rate here, regardless of facts like that.

Is a court case guaranteed? Do we know roughly as a percentage how many of these end up in court with Euro Car Parks?

We can count on our hands how many they try each year - it is infinitesimally small, less then 0.1% - you are lucky it;s ECP!