Euro Car Parks Notice To Keeper - Totton Shopping Centre

Coupon-mad

I think remove the bold and the little apostrophe on the two paragraphs you added to point #1

Remove the inappropriate suggestion that this was 2 visits from point #2 because you know it wasn't.  Remove the ANPR failure examples because this isn't right for your case.

Change #3 to add a point that you put the operator to strict proof that their client landowner makes no Equality Act 'reasonable adjustments' of time and/or extended grace period for disabled visitors such as this group.  State that you cannot believe this retail park allows such an Equality Act breach (failure to make reasonable adjustments) by their parking agent, for which the landowner/retailer client would be equally liable.

You don't seem to have a point 4?  And your summary at the top is superfluous and doesn't mention your final point about signs.

Talking of that, why not put them to strict proof that there were t&cs with clear view of the disabled bays?  So that they can be read from a car before parking, and that a machine was close to those bays, because it wasn't and it took several minutes to get a group of persons with complex learning disabilities out of the car and to the nearest signs and machine.  This is precisely why the Equality Act is not just about physical barriers to access, it also covers the right for more time, which is reiterated in the new DLUHC Code of Practice (and POPLA need to get up to speed that a breach of The Equality Act is NOT 'mitigation' it is statute law).

That will be a hard one for them to prove, if they hold no photos from those bays (you don't have to say where you actually parked...).

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

You can see me on Channel 5's 'Parking - the Big Con?' (Shown in December and available to watch on catch up) and I am the lady on the beach; I've never been a gent!

Jason.rangou

Im terribly sorry for my poor assumption.  I found the episode and listened to what you had to say. You are a true lady of justice.

In regards to the below

'Talking of that, why not put them to strict proof that there were t&cs with clear view of the disabled bays?  So that they can be read from a car before parking, and that a machine was close to those bays, because it wasn't and it took several minutes to get a group of persons with complex learning disabilities out of the car and to the nearest signs and machine.  This is precisely why the Equality Act is not just about physical barriers to access, it also covers the right for more time, which is reiterated in the new DLUHC Code of Practice (and POPLA need to get up to speed that a breach of The Equality Act is NOT 'mitigation' it is statute law).'

There were no cash machines in the car park, they allow 2 hours free parking then you have to use the app to pay for extra hours. the PCN states The vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After all the changesyou advised this is what I have its taking shape now thank you.

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

 

4.     Insufficient Signage

 

 

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 additon 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,

 

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.”

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

I put the operator to strict proof that their client landowner makes no Equality Act 'reasonable adjustments' of time and/or extended grace period for disabled visitors such as this group.  I  cannot believe this retail park allows such an Equality Act breach (failure to make reasonable adjustments) by their parking agent, for which the landowner/retailer client would be equally liable.

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

 

 

4. Insufficient signage.

 

I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof that the t&cs were not in clear view of the parking bays accessible for the disabled.  So that they cannot be read from a car before parking, This is precisely why the Equality Act is not just about physical barriers to access, which is reiterated in the new DLUHC Code of Practice a breach of The Equality Act is NOT 'mitigation' it is statute law

 

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 visible 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 visible 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 dr

 

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

1505grandad

Para 1  -  you should be using/quoting BPA CoP V8 dated January 2020  -  the paras/wording are different to your quotes (as pointed out by C-m 2.2.21)

BPA CoP V8:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

Jason.rangou

POPLA APPEAL SUBMITTED 14/02/22

Jason.rangou

UPDATE : 17/02/22

Euro Car Parks have uploaded their evidence to POPLA showing photos of the car park and signs as well as photos of the PCN and appeal.

 

KeithP

...and you now have five days to comment on their response.

Jason.rangou

I have noticed that the photos of the car park that ECP have provided are from the 24/11/20 over a year old. I was going to point that out in the comment section. Other than that their evidence is just photos of the car, my appeal and number plate. Is there anything that people normally say at this stage?

Le_Kirk

Remember you only have 2,000 characters to formulate your response.

Jason.rangou

Le_Kirk said:

Remember you only have 2,000 characters to formulate your response.

I am not sure I can pad out 'photos in appeal are over a year old' to 2000 characters .

Le_Kirk

Ha, it's a limit, not a target!