Euro Car Parks knuckleheads

Izzycat13

fisherjim said:

I can't understand why you thought the BPA would have access to anpr records of hundreds of individual car parks but any complaint about their scamming members is worth doing.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking POPLA with act on anything about you over paying they won't even consider it, of course the BPA give you no clues in their reply on what to use in your appeal.

The theory is that the PPC consider your appeal fairly and look at mitigating circumstances and in your case the facts of what happened with payment, and POPLA consider the way the PPC have operated from a law/procedural/signage etc point of view.

In reality the PPC wants money and doesn't consider anything, POPLA will side with their paymasters if at all possible so do the BPA.

Citizens advice are hopeless with anything to do with car parking, all very predictable.

Am I on a hiding to nothing here?

Fruitcake

Not at all.

You still have Plan A, complain to the landowner and Plan B, appeal to PoPLA.

You have already been advised where to find the template appeal points you should be using, so concentrate on that once you have completed plan A. PoPLA codes last 32 days, but don't miss the deadline. 

Post your draft appeal for checking before you submit it.

Not the landowner
No standing to bring charges
Frustration of contract (faulty pay machine failed to process payment)
Inadequate signage
Any BPA CoP failures
Anything else relevant.

Covid regs permitting, get pics of the site and signage including the entrance, and the view from where the car was parked. Do this on foot! You don't want another PCN.

Coupon-mad

Izzycat13 said:

Am I on a hiding to nothing here?

Where do you see any threads that say that?  No.

nosferatu1001

You're just being told that if they don't fail,on your side, so bloody what?
You have a consistent compelling story. They cannot disprove it. 

MothballsWallet

Redx said:

It still has a landowner !!

The USA didn't go to the moon because it was easy !!

No, they went to rescue the Transformers! (If you follow the Michael Bay movies' continuity.)

MothballsWallet

Izzycat13 said:

This machine took £4 of my money, the card swipe drew a blank too, that's the reason why i took the unusual step of taking these photographs. Regards, thank-you.

@Izzycat13, I'm afraid I can't see a discrepancy at all: the timestamp on the first photo is 12:51:49 and I can see "2:52" on the PDT machine screen - now, I am assuming that the photo cuts off the first "1" in the PDT machine screen's time, so you're talking a time difference of about 11 seconds, which can be explained by differences in synchronising for the clocks in the machine and your camera/phone.

It does depend what the master clock is: you can set a smartphone to get its date and time from the phone network (this is what I do, and what I've advised Mrs MbW to do so she doesn't have to keep changing the time when she has to travel between here and her family).

I don't know what a PDT machine would use as a master clock to synchronise itself to, possibly a central computer link up?

MothballsWallet

@Izzycat13 Also, which amount of time were you trying to purchase originally? I don't see an option for £2, the closest is £1.90 for up to 3 hours?

Or am I just being a dunce?

Izzycat13

@MothballsWallet
Hi, I entered @11:48 and left @12:53, ( the long story about this is that it refused to accept my usual card payment which would have been under an hour, but after entering my reg and trying to pay by card and it not accepting, i walked to my car and after a bit of rummaging through the ash tray, i returned to the PDT with a handful of coins. Now its 12:51, a few minutes over the hour, very inconvenient considering I clock watched to get back within the hour, but my first coin, a £2 would simply cover the £1.90 up to 3 hours. 
No acknowledgment of my £2 from the PDT, that's why i carefully followed by smaller amounts in 50p increments. A total of £4 entered with only 50p displayed without means of refund. 
The vehicles reg was entered 3 or 4 times, and I have paid. 

Izzycat13

Complaint draft to the BPA complaints dept, any edits thanks?

Dear BPA, I wish to complain about the conduct of one of your members: Eurocarparks, specifically the parking site on Rodney street Wigan on regarding frustration of contract and your members refusal to follow a legally responsible path.

 On 27/12/2020, at 13:19, The PDT on this site refused to accept card payment which was at a reasonable cost, frustrated at my attempts to use contactless, I entered the vehicles registration multiple times again and entered a total of £4, more than double the recommended payment, the only response from the PDT was that it acknowledged only a single 50p entered.

 With cameras and computers on this site, logging vehicle details, a simple check of their PDT will confirm that on this exact date and at those exact times from their computer records; multiple vehicle registration entries were entered and at that exact time, a total of £4 was entered into it. 

I have received a notice to keeper letter to which I have appealed the above which is a statement of events, which a simple check of their records will confirm. 

 Your member has rejected my appeal because in their own words: “there were no complaints about that PDT on that day”, and refuse to simply check their PDT records

Eurocarparks have on their site and in correspondence that they are an Approved ‘Member of the BPA’. According to your ACOP: this includes treating drivers fairly.

 A transaction between the vehicle parked and the car park operator come under the laws of contract.

By parking on this car park managed by this BPA approved member, I fully understand that it is an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms as per signage, the acceptance being the parking tariff. The frustrated contract, that without fault on my behalf, a member of the public that the PDT rendered the contract impossible to perform by being unable to result the obligation to pay.

 My complaint is that your ‘approved member’ is at this juncture has failed to treat a member of the public fairly by simply checking their records that will show they entered the correct VRN multiple times at the specified time and entered correct (over) payment at the same. I have met my contractual obligation, Eurocarparks, your approved member I believe is guilty of breaching a duty of mutual trust and confidence by attempting to levy additional amounts with threats of court action. 

 The performing of the agreed contractual obligation was impossible and can be proved by a request for the PDT records of the exact timeline.

 A practical analysis of your approved members behaviour is refusing to check their PDT in this case is questionable and wholly unreasonable. 

The notion of freedom of contract suggests that party should only be bound by actions that are voluntary, your member chooses to obtain their promise with threats, which is totally illegitimate as can be proved by a PDT check.

 The party subjected to the threat in my case, has co-operated in the fullest, even took photographs of the PDT at the time and has requested a simple check, yet your member is making illegitimate threats against a member of the public who has met all obligations under law. 

Fruitcake

Point 1 reveals the driver's identity making point 3 redundant.

Your numbering doesn't make sense. (The bullet point headings don't match the paragraph headings in bold type. They should be the same.)

The long inadequate signage point is missing, as are Not the landowner, and No standing to issue charges in their own name.