P
Pay & Display
Camera Controlled
Terms and conditions apply
See signage in car park
for full details
Private Land
Managed by Euro Car Parks
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Advice on POPLA appeal - rejected Euro Car Parks appeal - ECP allege 11 minute stay without payment
mrtedward
Posts: 17 Forumite
Hello, longtime forumite, first time poster under this pseudonym account...
A NTK was recently issued to us by Euro Car Parks in the post, dated 6 days following our vehicle registration being recorded on ANPR entering a surface level car park (no barriers) and leaving after 11 minutes. It includes numberplate images from the ANPR with timestamps of entry and exit.
I appealed to Euro Car Parks about a week later; I'm now aware I should have probably waited until day 26 of 28.
Excerpts from the letter (my emphasis added):
Then a paragraph referencing paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of POFA that the driver is required to pay this charge in full, and if we were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
Then a paragraph advising if after 29 days from the date given the charge has not been paid, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the charge from [us]. This notice is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of POFA. a POPLA reference is included.
NB that the Euro Car Parks NTK and letter of rejection assumes that the vehicle was stationary and parked, with the only images being provided that of the ANPR - the vehicle could just as easily have been circulating without ever being stationery, so how robust is their argument or this counter?
I contested the NTK and charge on the grounds of inadequate signage, that signage was not present throughout the entire car park area - and that where signs were affixed to lamp posts, they were fairly high up and not illuminated at all. Not an issue in daylight, but at night it's a different matter.
The general upkeep of the surrounding lighting is poor and many bulbs are either blown or on the opposite side from any signage, resulting in a fairly dark car park and no adequately illuminated signage.
I visited the site on foot twice; once during the day and again around the same time as the alleged breach of terms and conditions to photograph the surroundings and the signage. None of the signs detailing the terms and conditions of parking were visible upon entry, though there is a large white and blue "P" parking sign on a lamppost at the road entry, which is a spur off a three-way junction where the other two spurs are normal roads. There is no difference in road construction, pavements or walls/barriers indicating private land.
I contended that the signage was and is not clear or visible at night, due to an illegibly small design and no direct illumination meaning drivers cannot see the signs to clearly enter into a contract. I supplied photographs evidencing this. I also demonstrated that one whole side of the car park, which you would see after coming to rest in a parking space, has no signage whatsoever, with all signs being behind the vehicle position and thus invisible.
I made no admission that either of us were driving, simply referring to the letter's assertion that the vehicle was parked and providing evidence of the poor condition of signage at the time of the alleged parking event and breach of terms and conditions.
I received a boilerplate response from Euro Car Parks, rejecting the appeal as follows:
Followed by an invitation to pay the discounted amount which remains held for another 14 days and the usual spiel about appealing to POPLA and court action if nothing is done.
The rejection letter also includes a photo of the signage from close up, taken in bright daylight. However, this is surely irrelevant, as the time of the visit (and my subsequent visit to photograph the car park signage) was in total darkness, well after sunset. No photos of the vehicle parked in a bay were provided as clearly this letter has been generated solely due to ANPR data.
I feel that Euro Car Parks' rejection letter completely ignores the evidence presented, seeking to assert that the driver should have effectively walked around the car park with a torch looking for any signage then try to read it in the dark.
The positioning of the ANPR camera is such that it captures any vehicle's number plate before the driver has a chance to stop and avoid entry. On a lamppost near to the entrance is a white "Pay & Display" sign with:
And an even smaller blue and yellow Euro Car Parks sign underneath saying "PRIVATE PROPERTY" and a standard disclaimer of any loss/theft/damage suffered by vehicle owners.
All of the details related to charges or terms and conditions are only available within the site, and are positioned in parallel with the road, meaning you cannot read them from a distance. You are required to either stop in an unsafe manner blocking the road to read them, or park up and approach on foot to try and read the signs. One entire side of the car park (lined by buildings) is also not signed in any way.
The signage by the entry is arguably not adequately sized or positioned for drivers to read it without stopping in a junction and blocking two lanes of traffic.
If one were to park up and then start looking for signage then try to read it in the dark, it could realistically take ten minutes or so to do that and verify the small print. On the 'main' signs dotted about the car park, there are some lines of absolutely tiny text which are hard to read in daylight, never mind darkness. None of the signs are retroreflective and none have any direct lighting.
I intend to appeal this through POPLA. What is the best approach - to appeal based on time taken to read signage, decide not to enter into a parking contract and leave, or contesting on the grounds of inadequate maintenance and illegible / invisible during night hours?
From reading other threads, I'm thinking along the lines of the following arguments:
Then finish with details of the appeal to Euro Car Parks and their rejection with the boilerplate reasons they included, listed above.
Any suggestions for improvement? All help appreciated.
A NTK was recently issued to us by Euro Car Parks in the post, dated 6 days following our vehicle registration being recorded on ANPR entering a surface level car park (no barriers) and leaving after 11 minutes. It includes numberplate images from the ANPR with timestamps of entry and exit.
I appealed to Euro Car Parks about a week later; I'm now aware I should have probably waited until day 26 of 28.
Excerpts from the letter (my emphasis added):
"We are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay. The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park states that this is private land, the car park is managed by Euro Car Parks and sets out the terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound. The PCN <reference> has been issued as the vehicle was in breach of the following terms and conditions;
No valid pay and display/permit was purchased
The vehicle was parked at <location> by remaining at the car park without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to Euro Car parks (as the Creditor)."
Then a paragraph referencing paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of POFA that the driver is required to pay this charge in full, and if we were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
Then a paragraph advising if after 29 days from the date given the charge has not been paid, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the charge from [us]. This notice is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of POFA. a POPLA reference is included.
NB that the Euro Car Parks NTK and letter of rejection assumes that the vehicle was stationary and parked, with the only images being provided that of the ANPR - the vehicle could just as easily have been circulating without ever being stationery, so how robust is their argument or this counter?
I contested the NTK and charge on the grounds of inadequate signage, that signage was not present throughout the entire car park area - and that where signs were affixed to lamp posts, they were fairly high up and not illuminated at all. Not an issue in daylight, but at night it's a different matter.
The general upkeep of the surrounding lighting is poor and many bulbs are either blown or on the opposite side from any signage, resulting in a fairly dark car park and no adequately illuminated signage.
I visited the site on foot twice; once during the day and again around the same time as the alleged breach of terms and conditions to photograph the surroundings and the signage. None of the signs detailing the terms and conditions of parking were visible upon entry, though there is a large white and blue "P" parking sign on a lamppost at the road entry, which is a spur off a three-way junction where the other two spurs are normal roads. There is no difference in road construction, pavements or walls/barriers indicating private land.
I contended that the signage was and is not clear or visible at night, due to an illegibly small design and no direct illumination meaning drivers cannot see the signs to clearly enter into a contract. I supplied photographs evidencing this. I also demonstrated that one whole side of the car park, which you would see after coming to rest in a parking space, has no signage whatsoever, with all signs being behind the vehicle position and thus invisible.
I made no admission that either of us were driving, simply referring to the letter's assertion that the vehicle was parked and providing evidence of the poor condition of signage at the time of the alleged parking event and breach of terms and conditions.
I received a boilerplate response from Euro Car Parks, rejecting the appeal as follows:
"Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
- 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
- When purchasing a pay and display ticket, you must enter the correct vehicle registration number (VRM) and this information is directed to the camera system
- I can confirm that no pay and display ticket matching your VRM was purchased at the time of the terms and conditions.
- The signage is clear, a valid pay and display ticket must be purchased for the full duration of your stay on the car park.
- I can confirm the parking charge notice was issued correctly and remains payable.
- The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. This signage quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a parking charge notice (PCN) will be issued.
- On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).
- Please be advised that there are a number of signs around the car park indicating the restrictions of the site and it is the responsibility of the driver to read them when parking.
Followed by an invitation to pay the discounted amount which remains held for another 14 days and the usual spiel about appealing to POPLA and court action if nothing is done.
The rejection letter also includes a photo of the signage from close up, taken in bright daylight. However, this is surely irrelevant, as the time of the visit (and my subsequent visit to photograph the car park signage) was in total darkness, well after sunset. No photos of the vehicle parked in a bay were provided as clearly this letter has been generated solely due to ANPR data.
I feel that Euro Car Parks' rejection letter completely ignores the evidence presented, seeking to assert that the driver should have effectively walked around the car park with a torch looking for any signage then try to read it in the dark.
The positioning of the ANPR camera is such that it captures any vehicle's number plate before the driver has a chance to stop and avoid entry. On a lamppost near to the entrance is a white "Pay & Display" sign with:
And an even smaller blue and yellow Euro Car Parks sign underneath saying "PRIVATE PROPERTY" and a standard disclaimer of any loss/theft/damage suffered by vehicle owners.
All of the details related to charges or terms and conditions are only available within the site, and are positioned in parallel with the road, meaning you cannot read them from a distance. You are required to either stop in an unsafe manner blocking the road to read them, or park up and approach on foot to try and read the signs. One entire side of the car park (lined by buildings) is also not signed in any way.
The signage by the entry is arguably not adequately sized or positioned for drivers to read it without stopping in a junction and blocking two lanes of traffic.
If one were to park up and then start looking for signage then try to read it in the dark, it could realistically take ten minutes or so to do that and verify the small print. On the 'main' signs dotted about the car park, there are some lines of absolutely tiny text which are hard to read in daylight, never mind darkness. None of the signs are retroreflective and none have any direct lighting.
I intend to appeal this through POPLA. What is the best approach - to appeal based on time taken to read signage, decide not to enter into a parking contract and leave, or contesting on the grounds of inadequate maintenance and illegible / invisible during night hours?
From reading other threads, I'm thinking along the lines of the following arguments:
- There is no notice of the sum of the parking charge or full terms and conditions of parking displayed at the car park entry. There is further in, but at that point you are already on the ANPR system as having entered.
- The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. None of the signage is illuminated, and placement is very poor - resulting in a failure to fulfil the regulations in BPA Code of practice and POFA 2012; the signage is insufficient to bring any charge to the attention of the motorist. There is no signage at all along one side of the car park, where you might easily stop and see nothing from your vantage point inside the vehicle.
Followed by this, liberally borrowed from a previous appeal by another user:
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 significant charge, which is out of all proportion - equivalent to £10 for each minute.
I put Euro Car Parks 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.
- The format, size and colour scheme of the ECP signage is nearly identical to signage of the adjacent railway station - dark header and footer with yellow background, so they effectively 'blend in'. In the dark, to the naked eye without direct illumination, they can easily be mistaken for completely different signage.
- No Landowner authority per BPA Code of Practice (Paragraph 7) - requirement to produce strict proof of both compliance with the BPA Code of Practice requirements and of the contract terms with the actual landowner, not a lessee, and to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated, specifically-worded contract with the landowner whoing evidence to meet 7.3 of BPA Code of Practice, not just an 'agreement' with an intermediary managing agent, otherwise there is no authority.
Then finish with details of the appeal to Euro Car Parks and their rejection with the boilerplate reasons they included, listed above.
Any suggestions for improvement? All help appreciated.
0
Comments
-
There are a number of ready written template appeal points in the third post of the NEWBIES, so you would be well advised to use all the ones that are applicable. The NTK was PoFA compliant so there is no mileage there, but there are several other points you should use including.
Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures
Expand on your point that the ANPR scameras only recorded time on site, not parking time.
Use the long signage point and insert your own photos of the site and signage.
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks4 -
You need your own photos taken in the same light conditions as at the time of the parking event. Don't use flash!Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street3 -
Indeed, already done, and I submitted those to Euro Car Parks at the time of my first appeal. They seemed to ignore them.Umkomaas said:You need your own photos taken in the same light conditions as at the time of the parking event. Don't use flash!
I note the fact that they likely review this forum, I can post some images to illustrate what I mean, if you don't feel it would hurt the POPLA appeal?0 -
Appreciate the pointers Fruitcake. I did check out the newbies thread, reading through again I can see the "SECOND STAGE APPEAL - POPLA OR IAS" reply which has some relevant info, I was just wondering what people made of my potential approaches to this.Fruitcake said:There are a number of ready written template appeal points in the third post of the NEWBIES, so you would be well advised to use all the ones that are applicable. The NTK was PoFA compliant so there is no mileage there, but there are several other points you should use including.
Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures
Expand on your point that the ANPR scameras only recorded time on site, not parking time.
Use the long signage point and insert your own photos of the site and signage.
I also read the recent posts on the POPLA Decisions thread for some guidance which is where some of the opening post rebuttal is derived.
I can post some anonymised photos of letters, appeal rejection and photos of the site if you think it wouldn't harm the POPLA appeal? They would largely be the same as submitted to EPC in my first appeal.
0 -
Use the photos again in your PoPLA appeal.
Post them here by all means. Upload them to an image hosting site such as postimages, dropbox, tinypic etcetera then post the URL here, but change https to hxxps. Someone here will change them back to a live link.
Do not create an album on the hosting site in your real name, and make sure there are no other personal photos in that album. Believe me, it has happened.
Post your draft PoPLA appeal here for checking as well before you submit it.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks4 -
Umkomaas said:You need your own photos taken in the same light conditions as at the time of the parking event. Don't use flash!
Might want to experiment with manual or RAW format as automatic mode on most cameras/phones will try and make any dark images brighter than they really are.
2 -
Beyond my knowledge of 'point and shoot', but go with it. 🙂ParkerstNick said:Umkomaas said:You need your own photos taken in the same light conditions as at the time of the parking event. Don't use flash!
Might want to experiment with manual or RAW format as automatic mode on most cameras/phones will try and make any dark images brighter than they really are.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street2 -
Image of signage in car park supplied by ECP
hxxps://i.imgur.com/Y0QUkTc.png
Two shots of entry to car park from Google Maps
hxxps://i.imgur.com/Zs5JShS.jpg
hxxps://i.imgur.com/WlhMbzE.jpgImage showing a driver's potential view when parked with no signage in sight
hxxps://i.imgur.com/tZ45yk2.jpg
Note how the ECP sign designs are almost identical to the adjacent tram stop and barely distinguishable in light conditions
hxxps://i.imgur.com/VhqsbyY.jpg
A sign above a Pay & Display machine
hxxps://i.imgur.com/FNxzDuR.jpgSign nearest to entry
hxxps://i.imgur.com/aWK7L0P.jpg
Image taken at night time (same as the ticket) from entry
hxxps://i.imgur.com/OcnbqNM.jpg
A sign, not illuminated at all.
hxxps://i.imgur.com/hW9vULI.jpg
Another sign, also not illuminated. All signs in car park like this.
hxxps://i.imgur.com/0Z4Pgap.jpgOverview of the site entry at night time. Note lack of any adequate lighting and signs in total darkness.
hxxps://i.imgur.com/OxOORex.jpg
Note how the street lamps are broken and thus no illumination for signage
hxxps://i.imgur.com/pJOHNjl.jpg
(Draft of POPLA appeal to follow in separate reply)0 -
Two shots of entry to car park from Google Maps
https://i.imgur.com/Zs5JShS.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/WlhMbzE.jpgImage showing a driver's potential view when parked with no signage in sight
https://i.imgur.com/tZ45yk2.jpg
Note how the ECP sign designs are almost identical to the adjacent tram stop and barely distinguishable in light conditions
https://i.imgur.com/VhqsbyY.jpgSign nearest to entry
https://i.imgur.com/aWK7L0P.jpgOverview of the site entry at night time. Note lack of any adequate lighting and signs in total darkness.
https://i.imgur.com/OxOORex.jpg
Note how the street lamps are broken and thus no illumination for signage
https://i.imgur.com/pJOHNjl.jpgI married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks2 -
After doing some more research I realised that MikeHammer's impressively verbose 26-page 2017 appeal submission, linked in the newbies thread (first posted here) formed an almost perfect basis for my own appeal.
So, I incorporated, revised in a few places and modified to include my own information. Yellow highlighted items require confirmation, I'm awaiting a reply from the council's Planning department, and I need to visit the site one more time to take a few more photos of the signs as close up as possible and measure distances and heights of signage from the roadside, as he did on pages 12-14.
I removed a couple of sections pertaining to signage wording. MikeHammer's appeal referred to "insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself"; arguably irrelevant I feel in my case, as the designs of the signage in my case differ notably from the signage in his case.
However, that document's saved me a tremendous amount of writing and referencing as the circumstances were otherwise nearly identical, the operator the same and the criteria for the appeal effectively identical. Is there any danger to borrowing this existing appeal to form the basis of my own, given its arguments are completely relevant to my own case?
Draft 1 is available for review at hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1PjTUhcZZQvQLBrdZN8hLLwgOGQTVMEiJ/view?usp=sharing (don't worry, pseudonymous Google account!)
Grateful for your thoughts and feedback.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards