Euro car parks PCN during COVID-19 Lockdown

Scrapit

DimDi said:

Got a response from M&S telling me the same  rubbish things.I guess that I’ve never visit their store again.That’s the answer:

Thank you for taking the time to write to Steve Rowe. As a member of the Executive Team, I am responding on his behalf. 

I am sorry you have received a parking fine following your visit to our St Albans M&S in June. I understand the upset this has caused and why you have brought it to our attention. 

 

The car park in the location is operated by a third party, Euro Car Parks. There is clear signage on display throughout the car park advising of the terms and conditions. There is a two hour maximum time frame to use the car park and this has been the limit since before the pandemic. I am sorry, but you would have to contact Euro Car Parks to appeal this directly, as we would be unable to intervene. 

 

I apologise we are unable to assist you further in regard to the parking charge notice, but I would like to thank you for taking the time to bring it to Steve's attention. 

Kind regards

Executive Team
Your M&S Customer Service

I’ll wait now for ECP appeal response.

Are you gonna leave it at that?

Redx

Think the point here is that the time limit should have been increased due to the covid pandemic and their imposed queuing system !!! Disgraceful !!!

Ralph-y

I think that this will be a good one for the press local/national ..... Try your MP as well.

certainly leave feed back on social media .. facebook ... trip advisor ...

When you emailed the CEO did you tell them that you where pregnant  and therefore have further protections ...?

was the car park just a Tesco one or a retail park?

Ralph

Coupon-mad

Oh come on, no-one would accept that the time limit that applied pre-COVID was not adjusted by M&S and they actually think that is OK.  Take it to the press. Complain more, expose this in the national papers, that is NOT OK during COViD and ECP should be sacked from the site IMHO.

DimDi

Hi everyone,
sorry for the late response but gave birth to a lovely little angel a few weeks ago and literally no time for anything
I'll go to POPLA appeal now as ECP did not accept it as usual.Thank you all for the quick responses.

Ralph-y said:

I think that this will be a good one for the press local/national ..... Try your MP as well.

certainly leave feed back on social media .. facebook ... trip advisor ...

When you emailed the CEO did you tell them that you where pregnant  and therefore have further protections ...?

was the car park just a Tesco one or a retail park?

Ralph

Hi Ralph,
Got no time now to go thru this with the press or MP.
.....and YES,when I emailed the CEO I describe everything including my health condition - not that it change anything.
It is a M&S car park,located on the High Street so it can be said that it is kinda retail park.

Coupon-mad said:

Oh come on, no-one would accept that the time limit that applied pre-COVID was not adjusted by M&S and they actually think that is OK.  Take it to the press. Complain more, expose this in the national papers, that is NOT OK during COViD and ECP should be sacked from the site IMHO.

I have no spare time at the moment to deal with it further and don't want to put myself in any stressful situations right now with the baby.I'll try POPLA next.

 


Scrapit said:

DimDi said:

Got a response from M&S telling me the same  rubbish things.I guess that I’ve never visit their store again.That’s the answer:

Thank you for taking the time to write to Steve Rowe. As a member of the Executive Team, I am responding on his behalf. 

I am sorry you have received a parking fine following your visit to our St Albans M&S in June. I understand the upset this has caused and why you have brought it to our attention. 

 

The car park in the location is operated by a third party, Euro Car Parks. There is clear signage on display throughout the car park advising of the terms and conditions. There is a two hour maximum time frame to use the car park and this has been the limit since before the pandemic. I am sorry, but you would have to contact Euro Car Parks to appeal this directly, as we would be unable to intervene. 

 

I apologise we are unable to assist you further in regard to the parking charge notice, but I would like to thank you for taking the time to bring it to Steve's attention. 

Kind regards

Executive Team
Your M&S Customer Service

I’ll wait now for ECP appeal response.

Are you gonna leave it at that?

What else should I do? So far because of this they lost at least 10 customers - friends and family.

Redx

you follow the previous advice, complaining and appealing, if you fail to get this sorted out asap, then expect a court appearance within 6 years and plan accordingly

its one or the other

DimDi

Hi Guys,
I think I'm ready with the draft POPLA appeal.Can you please have a look at it and if there is anything else I can do?
It's been quite of a challenge with baby in one hand and a keyboard in the other so there it is:

POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxx

As the registered keeper of this vehicle I received a letter dated 01/07/2020 serving as a notice to keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Euro Car Parks – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 12/08/2020 and rejected via an email dated 08/09/2020. I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxx and contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge.

The driver attempted to pay for the expected stay but the two ticket machines were out of use with a note stated “ECP/M&S Important Customer Notice: To enable all our customers to carry out their shopping during this Period,the customer car park will be free for all users for 2 hours effective Wednesday 1st of April.”

https://imgur.com/9BKf93t

https://imgur.com/c0zdM0g

Therefore, I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:

1.Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice clause 18.10 .

2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and the 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 Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be
used for
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 Requirements
6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance




1. Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice clause  18.10 -  The T&Cs being changed by ECP.The new changes in T&C barely described by a sign placed on the pay machines till  other signs states different T&C  .

The Pay & Display machines being out of use/suspended, meaning payment/obtaining a ticket could not be made. As its clearly stated on other signs and T&Cs  that this is strictly a Pay and Display car park, https://imgur.com/IHaqymL  an option to obtain a ticket, regardless it is free or paid needs to be provided for the motorists,which states the period their contract with ECP begins and expires and which must be displayed on the vehicle (Example: https://imgur.com/JLVu9fL ) .At this case no such ticket could  be obtained from the Pay machines and therefore T&Cs can’t be met.

Furthermore the signs on the Pay machines states that “To enable all our customers to carry out their shopping during this Period,the customer car park will be free for all users for 2 hours…” by which it is not clear and in this case – is misleading, as a motorist can assume that it is free for 2 hours and after that time payment needs to be made to meet T&Cs.

Therefore ECP failed to meet the BPA CoP clause 18.10 which is:

“ Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”
Part 1

DimDi

2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and the 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

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge.

Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:



In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.




Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

https://imgur.com/wcNeco4 



This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

https://imgur.com/IHaqymL     Figure 1

https://imgur.com/oECMCLj    Figure 2

https://imgur.com/IDcoKZZ     Figure 3

https://imgur.com/wQTCTOr   Figure 4

https://imgur.com/fRVq84z      Figure 5

https://imgur.com/vosfcjV        Figure 6

https://imgur.com/FFk49Xw    Figure 7

 

Figure 1: Euro Car Parks’ main car park sign on Drovers way.

The image in figure 1 shows the main sign displaying terms and conditions. It is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways:

• It is high on a pole, making it difficult to read.

• There is a huge amount of text to be read.

• This text is crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background.

• Other text is far more prominent than the disputed £85 parking charge, which is hidden in a paragraph in small print. Only when zooming in on the image of the sign can you just (if peering at the image with the benefit of a computer) make it out in non-bold small print, half the size of the tariff charges. This appears to be deliberate, there is no other explanation.
• The section in red text at the bottom of the sign that is apparently an “Important Notice” is in tiny text that is impossible to read without a step ladder. It cannot be ignored – the wording used clearly states it is important and therefore urges the reader to fully read and understand. Why is something so important so small and illegible? Furthermore, red text on a yellow background is difficult to read, especially when light is introducing a glare onto the reflective surface of the sign.

Indeed, in relation to design principles, it is widely known that colour contrast
plays a key role in terms of accessibility as it “affects some people’s ability to
perceive information (in other words to be able to receive the information
visually).” (Government Digital Service, 17 June 2016). Whilst this web page
discusses design principles in relation to web design, the same points are true of print-based materials which would include signage.


Figure 2: Entrance to the car park as seen from a vehicle approaching.

The image in figure 2 shows the view as a driver approaches the entrance. Note it is not possible to approach from the opposite direction. It is also inadequate as an entrance sign in a number of ways:

• Upper sign on the pole is mounted way above the height of the driver.

• The bottom sign is angled away so a driver cannot read it from the angle of approach.
• Not only is this sign angled away, it is also extremely crowded with text so small no driver would be able to read it from within the car, even if it was angled towards them at head height.

• The text on the top sign is even higher with illegible text as the driver approaches.

• It would be a safety hazard for the driver to strain to read any of the terms on these 2 signs as they approached the entrance.

The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix B sets the requirements for entrance
signs. Following further research (on foot, during daylight), it is not disputed that
Euro Car Parks entrance sign meets these requirements in terms of wording/layout – in fact it is almost a direct copy of the example the BPA provide.

What is disputed are other requirements the BPA sets in Appendix B, specifically:

1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times…

In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case
is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead, nor is it readable and understandable at all times due to height, angle and text size.


Figure 3: Sign as you approach from the main road

This image shows the sign as you approach the car park from the approach road, (Drovers way). This sign is only visible if you travel in this direction down the Drovers way. This, nor any other sign of this type, is visible approaching the car park from the opposite direction.


Figure 4: The view of the car park from the opposite side to figure 3, further down the approach road (Drovers way).

The image in figure 4 shows both the lack of a visible large sign such as in figure 3 should you approach from the opposite direction.

Figure 5-6: The general view of the car park to illustrate sporadically placed signs with general areas of the site being unsigned.

Figure 7: Another signs in the car park was buried in piles of rubbish and partial hidden.

This case is similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

In addition, this case is also more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 2413527021 in February 2018 linked below:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5744067this decision the Assessor found that signs where the parking charge was not prominent on the signage did not comply with Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012:

“I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. This is due to the charge amount being written within a paragraph of text and is not prominent on the signage.”

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

“When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.”

And also discussed here:

www.signs.com/blog/signage-101-letter-height-visibility/
“Letter visibility will be affected by where you place the sign in relation to sidewalks or roadways. Take into consideration the angle of where you are placing the sign and the angle of the the viewer (whether in a car or walking on a sidewalk).”

“Signs below or above eye level should include larger letters for increased visibility.”

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' websites above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a '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.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:

“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so
under a licence or contract with you…. 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.”

Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established
between the driver and Euro Car Parks. To draw on the basic guidelines of
contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is
without knowledge of the offer.

When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to read, let alone
understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is
apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (too
high, with one sign angled away from the driver), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge. Had the terms been transparent and clearly communicated the driver would have made a different decision in the heat of the moment.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Part 2

DimDi

3. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be
used for

The rejection of the first appeal states ‘The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay on site.’

However, the signs on site at the time of parking fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice 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 Code of Practice 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 the car
park signage failed to accurately explain 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.

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign in the Drovers way car park (see Figure 1) 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 including bank holidays.”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera
images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is
absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way
related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge
Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices
being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead
merely states (see Figure 1):

“This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in
the issue of a £85 Parking Charge Notice (£50 if paid within 14 days of
issue).”

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 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

www.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.




4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the l andowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement




5. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 Requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no
record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms
and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to
the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period
of parking to which the notice relates;”

Euro Car Parks’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at Marks and Spencer – St Albans, 21 St Peter Street,St Albans,Herfordshire(the correct spelling is “HerTfordshire),AL1 3DP”

The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered Marks and Spencer-St Albans at 09:45:37 and departed at 12:31:59”. At no stage do Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

Euro Car Parks NtK states “we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles
entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the
gift of Euro Car Parks to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the
POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times,
Euro Car Parks are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was
parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in
the NtK.




6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).

The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the photographs (see photo below). The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.


Photo: This is an image of the NtK with non-compliant photographic evidence

https://imgur.com/GoDAEyx

KeithP

Section 5.
What's the point of that section?

Do you realise that the whole point of POFA is to transfer any liability the driver may have to the keeper?
So if they have failed to abide by POFA rules then the only result of that failure is that they cannot hold the Registered Keeper liable unless they know that the RK was the driver.

I cannot see anywhere in that PoPLA appeal that the RK has denied being the driver. 
Does ECP already know who was driving?