Euro Car Parks knuckleheads

Fruitcake

Just a warning: you have a maximum of six days not seven. Because of the way the system is set up, by the time you have received the scammers info you have already lost a day.

For any points not addressed, you say this point must be allowed. 
Landowner authority does not seem to have been addressed. There is a recent appeal in the PoPLA Decisions thread that was allowed for this reason, so I suggest you read it and see what it said. Quote the assessors words in your response if you have enough characters to spare.

KeithP

Izzycat13 said:
...any idea what I do now or am I screwed by these cowboys?

What you do now is read the part of the second post of the NEWBIES thread following the heading:
AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

You will see that you have less than seven days to respond, and your response must be less than two thousand characters - characters not words.

D_P_Dance

If you cannot pay they say park elsewhere.  So,of you cannot pay at Tesco you shop at Sainsbury  As a Tesco shareholder I do not think that that is in my best interests.

Izzycat13

Reading through the Popla response threads thanks. 
Seems I have 2 important points to address:
1: At no point do they address Landowner authority.
2: Their transaction report is nonsense, the biggest black hole in their robotic response is a failure to check PDT tally amount. This is very convenient for them, but totally irresponsible and a possibly corrupt omission.

Onwards!

Coupon-mad

1: At no point do they address Landowner authority.

As long as you had that in your appeal, you will win if you point out that as the first matter in your POPLA response.

Izzycat13

So many helpful comments, thank you.

Landowner authority was in my appeal, something I have added to a draft appeal. Am I on the right lines?

Dear Popla, I refer to my appeal, which clearly states that there is 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, andthe 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 landowner (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

 

Euro Car Parks transaction report is irrelevant and is discounted totally, the frustration of contract being that payment was made and the failure of ECP to check PDT tally amount is irresponsible. The appellant had to return to their car twice to find more coins to enter into the machine resulting in delayed exit and payment of more than double amounts. ECP’s refusal to acknowledge this fact is a potentially corrupt omission. 

I refer to the submitted demonstrable photographs by the appellant at the exact time, illustrating events outside their control and frustration of contract with the PDT display.

 

 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. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA ‘keeper liability’ to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported ‘NTK’ was served or not, because the fact remains that I am only appealing as the keeper and  ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with the terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot. Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015: Understanding keeper liability 'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registeredkeeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.' Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. 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.'' 

ECP has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. ECP can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As ECP have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

 

Based on the numerous points above I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed and look forward to hearing from you. 


 

Le_Kirk

Is that fewer than 2,000 characters?

Redx

So bullet points , keep it concise , no waffle , keep below 2000 characters including spaces , commas and full stops. !

I see none of that in your Popla rebuttal above ( popla already have your appeal , meaning that you cannot appeal to them twice )

Check your character count in a text checker !! Nowhere near 1999 characters

This reply is in less than 2000 characters

Le_Kirk

....... in fact it is 6,619.

Umkomaas

Umkomaas said:

You will have to rebut anything and everything in their evidence that is incorrect or which contradicts what you have said in your appeal. You have only 2,000 characters (not words), in which to do so, and every space and punctuation mark counts as a character.  So you're going to have to be focused in getting your position over, use bullet points rather than 'leggy sentences'. 

You cannot add any evidence that you haven't already included in your original POPLA appeal, neither can you add any new appeal point. Their 7-day deadline is immutable, and if you check the actual deadline they've given, you'll find that it's more like only 5 or 6 days from the time you received their communication. 

Seems like my advice either fell on deaf ears or was just totally ignored. 🤔