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

life4life

Hi guys, I am correcting the document.
About the sings I found this one related to the same car park company in another post.

Can I use it for myself and add some images?
( I can't see how old is the post so not sure if is recent or not...)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6098998/popla-appeal-ecp-no-pay-n-display/p2
-----------------
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside the car park.

It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,

(b) the commercial practice hides material information,

(c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,

and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''

It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.

MistyZ

I checked the post you linked to, looks like the OP joined in January of this year, so going by that the post is recent.  

Definitely add some numbered images and refer to them to illustrate your points.

Use Coupon_mad's terminology for sure! 

life4life

So, this is the edited draft. 
Please have a look! 

Also this is an example supporting my claim right?

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: 

“I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.”

MistyZ

life4life 
Also this is an example supporting my claim right?

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: 

“I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.”

I don't think that finding is a good match .... doesn't look like it relates to a hire car appeal.  
If it was, I think the assessor would have mentioned the PoFA para 13 & 14 failing & the PPC's consequent inability to transfer liability.

Fruitcake

Well it is relevant in that liability was not transferred to the keeper, but I think it is unnecessary.
Unless you have an example of another hire/lease car PoPLA appeal, and I am sure there are many in the PoPLA decisions thread, I wouldn't bother with anything that isn't a hire/lease car appeal.

Personally I wouldn't include that Parking Lie case.

Your appeal is strong enough on its own merits with regards to no keeper liability because paras 13 and 14 of the PoFA were not complied with.
It won't matter though if you do leave it in.

Fruitcake

Section 4 of your appeal.

APRN needs correcting at least twice.

Section 7.

After "It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate ‘total stay’." I would add. "as opposed to parking time."

You need an ending to your appeal. Something along the lines of, "For the above reasons I request my appeal be allowed."


Hopefully we have helped you. Please now help our NHS heroes by signing this petition.

https://www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-hospital-staff-shouldn-t-have-to-pay-onsite-parking?source_location=petitions_browse

life4life

Hi guys! Thank you for all the support! 

I will delete that example and insert the final tweaks!
I will sign the petition for sure! 

Silly final question... In the title of the appeal,
do I need to put my Name/Surname or the Unique POPLA Verification Code? 

Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v Euro Car Parks Ltd

life4life

Hi guys, I am going to start the appeal and upload the doc.
Just to be sure, is ok to select these 2 reasons for the appeal?

Or should I go for...

Umkomaas

Tick 'Other' and attach your appeal as a pdf file. Ignore the bit about it likely to be less successful. 

But, do you know that all this information is already included in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky which has been written to relieve regulars of having to answer the same questions which almost every poster asks - hundreds of times a day. Please do refer to it as your 24/7 resource carrying answers to almost everything you need to know. If you can't find an answer, tell us where you've searched in the sticky, and if it isn't already covered, we'll make sure it is added at the next revision. 

life4life

Hi guys hope you are all well and safe.
The carpark uploaded the evidences they have.
I will attach the doc here for you to review.

Is the case to reply using those 2000 characters?

A couple of details I noticed in their evidences...