Euro Car Parks

zipadee

So two new PCNs received from Euro Car Parks.

1. Parked in a Shell Service Station next to a car plugged into the electric charger but turns out was not charging and driver no where to be seen. After 20 or so mins, asked inside the petrol shop if charger could be removed from other car so the driver could charge car. Continued charging and driver left without too much thought and then the keeper received PCN a week later. The time between entering and leaving station given as  1 hour 6 mins on the PCN. I think the time limit must have been an hour. 

I have got in touch via twitter with Shell and started the process of explaining the situation and trying to get them to cancel the PCN. IF not successful, will appeal against PCN to Euro Car Parks and then appeal at POPLA. Hoping there might be some discretion on being just outside the time limit. I need to get a photo of the signage. Not easy the petrol station is an hours drive away but I know someone who lives locally to the petrol station.

2. Parked in a car park which is linked to an appartment block in London. The driver asked someone they know who lives in one of the apartments to get permit to park in the car park. This was done on three consecutive days. However for the third day of parking, a PCN has been issued. I need to determine from the driver if the person  entering details for the permit in the machine has done the right thing. I'm a bit sketchy on how permission to park is done but will get more info from driver. 

Again first step will be to get details of landowner and appeal to them to cancel PCN.  Then of course will appeal against PCN to Euro Car Parks and then appeal at POPLA. I think I need to get photos of signage etc. and more idea if any proof given when permission to park is requested.

All very irritating. These PPCs need no excuse to send out a ticket and have told driver to be more aware etc. Ah well, at least having gone through the process before with another PPC having read the newbies thread at least I know what to do. 

Coupon-mad

Sounds like you are on the right course.  The first one is plain ridiculous and shows why ANPR is not fit for purpose in places like petrol stations.

Redx

Good so far

Bear in mind the January 2020 BPA CoP clause 13 grace periods covers the first pcn if your assumptions are correct , never mind anything else

zipadee

Redx said:

Good so far

Bear in mind the January 2020 BPA CoP clause 13 grace periods covers the first pcn if your assumptions are correct , never mind anything else

Hi Redx
Thanks for that information. I am optimistic that I can appeal the first pcn. Hopefully get landowner to cancel failing that  the grace period above is a great addition to the appeal. 

The 2nd pcn is more interesting. I have been sent photos of the car park signage by person living in the adjacent apartments. Basically you can pay by phone to park there and the sign gives information as to cost. As a person living in the apartment, via a concierge or a machine (not sure which yet) you can apply for permission for guests to park there by giving details of registration number etc. I need to find out what time period the parking relates to or if you have to apply for permission each time you leave and come back. It may be the driver left the car park and came back a little later and stayed a couple of hours before leaving not thinking they need to apply for permission again. This is referred to double dipping I think based on other stuff I've read. I really need to find out the terms of parking as this should be made clearer. That;s all I can currently think could be reason as the driver parked in the car park for three consecutive days. 

Thanks 

zipadee

Re 2nd PCN I am about to send the appeal below to the the PPC. I have stripped out quite a bit from Coupon-mad's template and just added the stuff about permission to park via a tablet in the reception area. If they find request for parking is in their system, I can only conclude the car leaving and returning on the same day is reason for PCN.

Re PCN number: XXXXXXXXXX

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle, I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

My understanding is that visitors to xxxxxxxxx can apply for parking permission via the reception by inputting the car registration number into an electronic tablet system. This  was actually performed on the given date of event, from what I understand. No receipt was provided unfortunately after  this is was performed.

Can you please provide evidence that the process above was not performed as you must have access to information entered. Why is no official receipt supplied and where are the terms for parking stated ?

If as stated, permission to park was applied for, what basis are you making this charge ?

Le_Kirk

My understanding is that visitors to xxxxxxxxx can apply for parking permission via the reception by inputting the car registration number into an electronic tablet system. This  was actually performed on the given date of event, from what I understand. No receipt was provided unfortunately after  this is was performed.

You need to tidy up this bit.  Also rewrite it so that it is clear that you are appealing as keeper and all the stuff you know is because you spoke to the driver.

zipadee

Thanks Le_Kirk.
I've just got more information from the person living in the apartment. She spoke to concierge and was told that you have to enter the car details every time you enter and leave the car park so I suspect that is the problem here as driver did leave and come back. Shame concierge did not make that clear or that driver did not ask. Honest mistake.

Concierge said to use this info in the appeal i.e. person living in apartment had only recently moved in and so didn't know and wasn't made clear to them about the process. Arghhhhh....

Do you think if appeal fails and then fails with POPLA, this is worth taking all the way ?

Le_Kirk

It likely will fail as they are only interested in money.  Might fail at POPLA as they seem to not take on board mitigating circumstances (or indeed facts) but you will need to try. If it goes to court, with a solid defence and a good witness statement that includes what you posted above, you stand a chance.  See if you can get what the concierge said in writing.

Coupon-mad

Yes it is worth defending. POPLA might not see this but a Judge will have to consider the law and fairness because it's a consumer contract.

The defence is supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because clearly expecting someone whose car has been registered as a visitor to have to re-register their car again and again and again, is not only an unfair term (especially if that was never communicated) but the doctrine of contra proferentem applies, and the interpretation of the term must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  Having registered as an authorised visitor there was nothing to say she wasn't authorised or when that expired.  Maybe they should have checked (I would have) but people are entitled to rely upon the authorisation terms that the resident understood to be the case.

Also the charge for not doing so is clearly punitive and not backed by any legitimate interest.  The visitor was known to be authorised by the resident.

zipadee

Coupon-mad said:

Yes it is worth defending. POPLA might not see this but a Judge will have to consider the law and fairness because it's a consumer contract.

The defence is supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because clearly expecting someone whose car has been registered as a visitor to have to re-register their car again and again and again, is not only an unfair term (especially if that was never communicated) but the doctrine of contra proferentem applies, and the interpretation of the term must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  Having registered as an authorised visitor there was nothing to say she wasn't authorised or when that expired.  Maybe they should have checked (I would have) but people are entitled to rely upon the authorisation terms that the resindent understood to be the case.

Also the charge for not doing so is clearly punitive and not backed by any legitimate interest.  The visitor was known to be authorised by the resident.

Thanks Coupon-mad
Do you think I could use the above as part of the appeal to PCN and POPLA or is it something I would include at the court stage as part of defence ?

Coupon-mad

Try it at POPLA, add it to the start, then follow that point with the usual POPLA template points, pre-written already (see post #3 of the NEWBIES).