Advice on POPLA appeal - rejected Euro Car Parks appeal - ECP allege 11 minute stay without payment

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

Wow, almost 8,500 words? 😮. Hopefully that will put the PPC off from reading it and responding!  Your final 3 appeal sections have never once won a POPLA appeal. 

Whilst I agree, I believe they should be included where appropriate, and reference made to the relevant part of the PoFA 2012, para 12.

12 

(1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

I would suggest that the Town and Country Planning Act is a statutory instrument and therefore not having Advertising Consent has breached both this Act and the PoFA.

I mentioned this in my response to the draft PAS. Let's see if it gets included.

mrtedward

Umkomaas said:

Wow, almost 8,500 words? 😮. Hopefully that will put the PPC off from reading it and responding!  Your final 3 appeal sections have never once won a POPLA appeal. 

You can thank MikeHammer for a great deal of the hard work, it's surprising how similar his and my cases are...

Fruitcake said:

Whilst I agree, I believe they should be included where appropriate, and reference made to the relevant part of the PoFA 2012, para 12.

12 

(1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

I would suggest that the Town and Country Planning Act is a statutory instrument and therefore not having Advertising Consent has breached both this Act and the PoFA.

I mentioned this in my response to the draft PAS. Let's see if it gets included.

That's a very sensible recommendation, I've incorporated that into revision 5. At this point, I think I only have a couple of diagrams to add to along with some additional photos and various measurements of signage mounting heights and distances from the road, which I was unable to do today.

I guess after I've done that this week, all that's left is to wait a few more days for any responses from the planning department and the management company contact (stony silence so far), then submit this as an attachment on my POPLA appeal. Parking Prankster's guide is still the best one I think? 

mrtedward

Interesting development this afternoon - council planning department responded.

They confirmed that they searched their systems and found no additional planning consents for other works described (pole-mounted ANPR cameras, Advertising Consent for signage, additional free-standing parking meters).

The only permissions granted in the past were one for a single "free-standing parking meter" and another for "3 non-illuminated pole mounted signs and 1 non illuminated freestanding sign".

I asked about Advertising Consent but they mentioned nothing.
.
They did also send me a link to create an enforcement case to investigate possible breaking of planning rules, which I think I'll be completing in due course...

Coupon-mad

Good!

But POPLA don't care about that.  Don't include stuff that doesn't have a chance at POPLA.

mrtedward

Thanks for everybody's help so far.
I've submitted the appeal to POPLA with PDF attached, per the parking-prankster guide. I'm not sure how long I should expect before I see any progress on the appeal tracking page. What would you expect as a reasonable timespan?

Redx

Probably between one and three months , but more likely 6 to 8 weeks

mrtedward

Cheers. You will be the first to know the outcome. Time for a beer 

D_P_Dance

Read this

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

mrtedward

That's an interesting case summary @D_P_Dance, thanks.
ECP responded quickly to the POPLA appeal with their own 'pack', in which they appear to address numerous points raised.
They repeat the original wording of the NTK and insist on POFA and BPA CoP compliance; insist that signage is clear and the usual wording of driver's responsibility to check for signage and ensure correct parking.

They then attempt to refute my assertion of signage not visible and not compliant with the BPA CoP, asserting that the NTK is PoFA compliant and that the vehicle's time on site was slightly longer than the ANPR recorded times on the NTK.

They have provided further images of a vehicle on the connecting access road (not inside the car park, arguably at the boundary) - as it's pitch black no passengers, not even the vehicle colour, can be made out. The visible light photo of the car is not good enough quality to even show the numberplate, so it appears the ANPR camera is using near-infrared to separately grab a numberplate still.
They reply with some detail on how the ANPR cameras are NTP synchronised to avoid time drift and that their ANPR cameras are "compliant under the home office approval framework as stated under NAAS/NASP" (no supporting information).

Then there's numerous bullet points describing how a ticket is issued according to trespass and contract law, use of ANPR, and contract signage.

They include a brief excerpt from a transaction log from that day which they say demonstrates that signage wa sclear and visible and customers were able to read the terms and conditions of parking. They repeatedly make assertions without referring to any specific PoFA or BPA CoP paragraphs, except what is written on the NTK and initial appeal refusal boilerplate previously sent.

They have also included a poor quality copy of the BPA CoP with an Authorisation Instructions showing that the management company for the land authorises ECP to carry out parking enforcement on the site and that the management company requires ECP to comply with all aspects of the COP as published and amended.

They have also provided bright daytime photos and some night time shots at slow shutter (vastly improving the brightness and overall visibility) of the signage. In some shots they used flash. I supplied my own (and they included my original submissions of some of the same photos taken at night) showing how they appeared during conditions of the recorded visit time. Their own photos do also demonstrate the terrible ambient lighting and no direct illumination of any signage.

ECP don't appear to have adequately addressed the points made in my initial letter, and I still think there are valid arguments to be made on several points -

1) no planning consent for any signage or ANPR cameras, thus signage is illegal and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, breaching their own agreement signed with the landowners and invalidating any enforcement authorisation. The BPA CoP as agreed also includes things like "the boundaries of the land must be clearly defined", another arguable vagary as the site is free to access with no fence demarcating the pedestrian or vehicle boundary.
2) no direct illumination of any signage, poor placement (too high) and not visible or easily readable even on foot, certainly not while in a vehicle moving through the car park at night.
3) even with their overestimated length of stay for the vehicle, it is arguably still not an unreasonable length of time for a vehicle to enter a car park, find a parking spot, occupants exit the vehicle, gather belongings and secure the vehicle, find a sign to read terms and conditions, attempt to read it in almost total darkness from a sign well above head height with no direct illumination, not consent to the terms of parking, walk back to the vehicle, get back in and leave - all entirely legally and in compliance with the stated terms of parking.


ECP have so far not provided any strict proof of any planning consents for signage or advertising consent or ANPR equipment or static mounting poles. The points made in my original letter stand; it would seem ECP have chosen to not acknowledge the valid points they have no response for.

I have seven days to comment on this operator's evidence through the POPLA appeal portal, so I'm thinking I pursue the above points and reiterate the points not addressed? In 2000 characters or less ;-)

D_P_Dance

Dou you need to confine yourself to 2,000 characters, why not send a letter or multiple emails.