Euro Car Parks Norwich - POPLA - Rejected 1st Appeal - Help

D_P_Dance

ParkingEye's signs are amongst the worse,  they have lost several court claims cases recently because of this, have you read  this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

Fruitcake

D_P_Dance said:

ParkingEye's signs are amongst the worse,  they have lost several court claims cases recently because of this, have you read  this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

We know, you've told us before, but what has that got to do with this thread?

D_P_Dance

A lot, read the last post on page 2.  

Le_Kirk

But it is Euro Car Parks!  Unless I misread the OP's OP.

life4life

Good afternoon guys,

I have managed to pull together the first draft of the appeal. 
The main points I decided to cover are:

1. The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge – No Keeper Liability. 
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
4. Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – Non-Compliance.
5. The ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate.

I have decided not to insert any points on signage because (as showed in photos) there's not much to say beside 'they are not clearly visible from all parking spaces)... Also, the point regarding "No evidence of period parked" and "Failure to comply with data protection" are worth to be inserted? 

- No evidence of period parked:

In the PCN (available in the first page of the post) there is no mention regarding the length of the stay, which I think is what is required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). Can you confirm that? They just state 'to calculate their length of stay'...

- Failure to comply with data protection:

About this point, I am not sure. There is a sign stating something like this more or less... 

life4life

Here's the draft of the appeal.
In case I can post the full text here, if easier. 
Thanks!!!

MistyZ

I think your very important first section looks okay.  Wait for the views of eagle-eyed regulars!  However I don't think POPLA can be relied upon to follow links - better to quote, therefore.

Signage: second signage photo you posted: excessive amount of information on the two signs, one above the other, none of it is directly about the T&Cs, not as far as I could tell from skim reading anyway and what more can be expected when parking a car?  Third & fourth: ah, found 'em - the T&Cs.  Shame they're so high up on the poles and therefore very difficult to read.  

The car park looks very irregularly shaped.  It is therefore important that signage should be visible from all parking spaces and it is not.  There should be more signs and they should all reinforce the same things.  There are an array of different ECP signs serving different purposes there, no consistency and many areas without key information displayed at all. 

Please include a signage section - you take the ready-made bit from the Newbies' thread, you add a 'customised' paragraph or two which is specific to that car park and outline how the signs fail to meet the standards mentioned in the 'good-to-go' chunk.  There is absolutely nothing to lose from doing this.  Signage is always a good fall-back section, even if you're pretty sure your winning point lies elsewhere.

Coupon-mad

 Also, the point regarding "No evidence of period parked" and "Failure to comply with data protection" are worth to be inserted? 

No, don't bother, but do include something about the signs not being visible and ask why is the data protection sign in uncluttered font, some 3 times the size of the supposed 'contractual' terms.  Why are the contractual terms so cluttered?

MistyZ

Coupon-mad said:

No, don't bother, but do include something about the signs not being visible and ask why is the data protection sign in uncluttered font, some 3 times the size of the supposed 'contractual' terms.  Why are the contractual terms so cluttered?

Exactly what I was trying to say but so much better!  Go for it OP.  

Fruitcake

You have mentioned Europcar Group and Smart Parking several times in your appeal.

You are dealing with Euro Car Parks not the hire company or a different parking scammer.

You need to go through every paragraph and line and correct this.