Euro Car Parks knuckleheads

Redx

The above letter is not the NTK PCN , it's their appeal rejection , issued after you appealed

Izzycat13

Thanks.
I've dug and found the original, scanned 

Izzycat13

Seems a little short this new POPLA response, but will it suffice?
re:

Dear POPLA, Euro Car Parks have failed in their response.

 

 

1: ECP Failure: 

ECP have refused to address or prove evidence of Landowner Authority’, I hold to account that there is absolutely ‘No evidence of Landowner Authority’- the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Where is ECP’s evidence of Landowner authority? 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. 

 

1: ECP Failure: 

Euro Car Parks transaction report is irrelevant and is refuted absolutely, they have failed to address the frustration of contract being that payment was made and the failure of ECP to check PDT tally amount is wholly irresponsible. The appellant had to return to their car twice to find more coins to enter into the machine resulting in delayed exit and final extra payments of more than double amounts. ECP’s refusalto simply check and acknowledge this fact, and I hold ECP to account on this point that this is a 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.

 

 

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

Izzycat13

Bacback of ntk

Coupon-mad

 As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then POPLA will have no option than to find that this PCN was not properly issued and uphold my appeal.  I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

Izzycat13

Coupon-mad, thank you. 
Final draft?

Dear POPLA, Euro Car Parks have failed in their response.

 

 

1: ECP Failure: 

ECP have refused to address or prove evidence of Landowner Authority’, I hold to account that there is absolutely ‘No evidence of Landowner Authority’- the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Where is ECP’s evidence of Landowner authority?  As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then POPLA will have no option than to find that this PCN was not properly issued and uphold my appeal

 

1: ECP Failure: 

Euro Car Parks transaction report is irrelevant and is refuted absolutely, they have failed to address the frustration of contract being that payment was made and the failure of ECP to check PDT tally amount is wholly irresponsible. The appellant had to return to their car twice to find more coins to enter into the machine resulting in delayed exit and final extra payments of more than double amounts. ECP’s refusalto simply check and acknowledge this fact, and I hold ECP to account on this point that this is a 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.

 

 

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

Fruitcake

You have two number ones.

Your numbers should tally with your original appeal points.

If the PDT failure was point 3 in your appeal then your rebuttal should refer to that point number not being addressed.

Izzycat13

Submitted, thanks!!!

Izzycat13

BIG THANKS to all who assisted in my appeal.

Landowner Authority was the right avenue.
Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

########

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Thanks lovely people

Coupon-mad

Great news! 

Also, PLEASE PLEASE keep checking back here every couple of weeks until you see that the final Government consultation about the level of parking charges gets launched for a month this Summer.

coming soon and we need people like you!