Euro Car Parks Notice To Keeper - Totton Shopping Centre

D_P_Dance

Of course you do not have to pay.  Have you not read thee newbies?  This is a scam.  

Jason.rangou

I have navigated the NEWBIE section and read a lot! - I have copied this and adapted it from one of the links. Is it sufficient? - Any help greatly received.

POPLA REF: 

I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from Euro Car Parks Totton Shopping Centre Car Park because:

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the signs within the car park and pay for ticket and no grace period was given for the group to safely exit the car park afterwards.
2. The Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the signs within the car park and pay for ticket and no grace period was given for the group to safely exit the car park afterwards.
The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

The driver of the car at the time was supposedly captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 28/12/2021  12:48 and driving out at 15:29 on the same date The driver was unaware that parking time began from entry to the car park.

 The driver returned to the car park after supporting adults with learning difficulties.  It is very clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as per EQUALITY ACT 2010 'due to the fact the passengers have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and  that Euro Car Parks and the Landowner have a statutory duty to allow additional time for such visitors. 

2. The Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided photographs of a number plate twice. Typed beneath the photographs are the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park. These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking, and unless the car park operator are able to provide proof of calibration, bears no relation to the ticket purchased from the pay and display machine

There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities, from two photos of a moving car on a bridge. I.E. neither picture shows a stationary or parked vehicle within any car parking area.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

A more likely explanation is that the driver(s) may have driven in and out on two or more separate occasions. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known phenomenon).

Here are just three examples of BPA member ANPR evidence failures, including a court loss and an ICO investigation:
parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/highview-parking-spurred-into-immediate.html
parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html
parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html

This 'double dip' fault in ANPR evidence is a fact confirmed by the BPA in the following article:

britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
''Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

POFA 2012, paragraph 9(3) states;
“The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)”

If the ANPR system has picked up two separate occasions then it would fail on the above ruling as two separate PCNs should be issued, assuming the vehicle in question had breached the contract terms, and not just the one that was sent to the Keepers address. I put the operator to strict proof that there was only one period of parking, because this is a mandatory requirement for keeper liability also stated clearly in Schedule 4.
Consequently, Euro Car Parks has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If Euro Car Parks should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

3. 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner 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

5 Insufficient signage.

 Euro Car Parks Ltd. state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visable in said images. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visable to the driver if they happened to be driving a convertible with the roof down and quite clearly this is not the case in the images. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.

It is for the reason above I am contacting POPLA.

Coupon-mad

I think you might be quoting from an old BPA CoP?  Check.  It's easy to find on the BPA website.

No point in this if the NTK was a POFA one, as ECP's usually are:

3. 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

Jason.rangou

Coupon-mad said:

I think you might be quoting from an old BPA CoP?  Check.  It's easy to find on the BPA website.

No point in this if the NTK was a POFA one, as ECP's usually are:

3. 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

Thank you for your help with this Coupon Mad it is greatly received by all 

I don't know what BPA CoP Means. I copied this from the newbie section. After reading walls of text and various POPLA appeals. To be honest my brain is aching after reading so much.

I have now removed section 3.

Is this too much do you think? - The driver returned to the car park after supporting adults with learning difficulties.  It is very clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as per EQUALITY ACT 2010 'due to the fact the passengers have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and  that Euro Car Parks and the Landowner have a statutory duty to allow additional time for such visitors.

Is there anything else to add?  

Coupon-mad

Can you prove with evidence what your carer role (or voluntary) work is, and add that you ask ECP to review this evidence and drop out/cancel the PCN by offering 'no contest' in this POPLA process, given the disability issue because you will otherwise take it up as disability discrimination with the shopping centre owners and your MP.

Jason.rangou

Coupon-mad said:

Can you prove with evidence what your carer role (or voluntary) work is, and add that you ask ECP to review this evidence and drop out/cancel the PCN by offering 'no contest' in this POPLA process, given the disability issue because you will otherwise take it up as disability discrimination with the shopping centre owners and your MP.

yes i can prove with evidence i am a carer as i have identification - Shall i add this

'ECP to review this evidence and drop out/cancel the PCN by offering 'no contest' in this POPLA process, given the disability issue because you will otherwise take it up as disability discrimination with the shopping centre owners and your MP'

with this

'The driver returned to the car park after supporting adults with learning difficulties.  It is very clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as per EQUALITY ACT 2010 'due to the fact the passengers have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and  that Euro Car Parks and the Landowner have a statutory duty to allow additional time for such visitors'

Should I scan my identification with the popla appeal ?

Coupon-mad

Yes and yes.

Jason.rangou

Coupon-mad said:

Yes and yes.

Is the below ok? - If you are happy with this and you say its ok. I will add it to the above and then send through the POPLA appeal

'The driver returned to the car park after supporting adults with learning difficulties. It is very clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as per EQUALITY ACT 2010 'due to the fact the passengers have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and  that Euro Car Parks and the Landowner have a statutory duty to allow additional time for such visitors. I ask the ECP to review this evidence and drop out/cancel this PCN by offering 'no contest' in this POPLA process, given the disability issues. If not I will have no option other than to take this as disability discrimination with the shopping centre and indeed raise this with my local MP. 

Coupon-mad

You could add that the new statutory Code of Practice, released by Government on 7th February, requires operators to adhere to the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC statutory Code of Practice for Service Providers, and specifically has a section about accessibility that reminds operators that there are invisible disabilities that are not just about providing special wider bays, but also additional time where needed.

Jason.rangou

**Coupon Mad - Is this now complete and ready to send along with my identification? - Once I get the nod from you I will send.

Thank you so much for your time and energy in helping me. You are a true gent**

POPLA REF: 

I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from Euro Car Parks Totton Shopping Centre Car Park because:

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the signs within the car park and pay for ticket and no grace period was given for the group to safely exit the car park afterwards.
2. The Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the signs within the car park and pay for ticket and no grace period was given for the group to safely exit the car park afterwards.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

The driver of the car at the time was supposedly captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 28/12/2021  12:48 and driving out at 15:29 on the same date The driver was unaware that parking time began from entry to the car park.

'The driver returned to the car park after supporting adults with learning difficulties. It is very clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as per EQUALITY ACT 2010 'due to the fact the passengers have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and  that Euro Car Parks and the Landowner have a statutory duty to allow additional time for such visitors. I ask the ECP to review this evidence and drop out/cancel this PCN by offering 'no contest' in this POPLA process, given the disability issues. If not I will have no option other than to take this as disability discrimination with the shopping centre and indeed raise this with my local MP. 

In addiiton The new statutory Code of Practice, released by Government on 7th February, requires operators to adhere to the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC statutory Code of Practice for Service Providers, and specifically has a section about accessibility that reminds operators that there are invisible disabilities that are not just about providing special wider bays, but also additional time where needed

2. The Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related.

It merely provided photographs of a number plate twice. Typed beneath the photographs are the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park. These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking, and unless the car park operator are able to provide proof of calibration, bears no relation to the ticket purchased from the pay and display machine

There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities, from two photos of a moving car on a bridge. I.E. neither picture shows a stationary or parked vehicle within any car parking area.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

A more likely explanation is that the driver(s) may have driven in and out on two or more separate occasions. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known phenomenon).

Here are just three examples of BPA member ANPR evidence failures, including a court loss and an ICO investigation:
parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/highview-parking-spurred-into-immediate.html
parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html
parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html

This 'double dip' fault in ANPR evidence is a fact confirmed by the BPA in the following article:

britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
''Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

POFA 2012, paragraph 9(3) states;
“The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)”

If the ANPR system has picked up two separate occasions then it would fail on the above ruling as two separate PCNs should be issued, assuming the vehicle in question had breached the contract terms, and not just the one that was sent to the Keepers address. I put the operator to strict proof that there was only one period of parking, because this is a mandatory requirement for keeper liability also stated clearly in Schedule 4.
Consequently, Euro Car Parks has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If Euro Car Parks should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

3. 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner 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

5 Insufficient signage.

 Euro Car Parks Ltd. state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visable in said images. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visable to the driver if they happened to be driving a convertible with the roof down and quite clearly this is not the case in the images. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.

It is for these reason above I am contesting the PCN and contacting POPLA.