EURO PARKING SERVICES - PCN

MothballsWallet

Trainerman said:

rdw_06 said:

Umkomaas said:

Go through the appeals phases so that, should it result in a court case, a Judge can see you followed the process in an attempt to resolve the issue. 

Thanks, the appeal was sent to them yesterday (unedited).  I will keep you updated with the outcome.

When we tried pleading with the pub owner he became aggressive in front of the customers in the bar.  Saying ‘you got out the car, you got no chance of getting it cancelled’.  The manager must believe people have ‘bionic eyes’ and can see through all sorts of obstructions.  I asked him for his email address and he point blank refused to give it to me.  He was not trying to resolve anything at this point.  Not helpful at all.  It is shameful, the lengths they will go to prove a point, but they are only letting themselves down with this kind of behaviour.

Do you happen to know for sure that he owns the pub, rather than being a tenant?? If he is a tenant, I would be complaining to the Brewery. If he owns it, there is always Trustpilot, Tripadvisor and other review sites.

Regardless of the result of the PCN, I would not take HIS actions/aggression lying down !

Indeed - I wonder what the brewery management would make of one of their tenant landlords acting like this to a member of the public who could be a current (or future) patron of the pub (assuming that the brewery actually cares).

Le_Kirk

rdw_06 said:

Le_Kirk said:

We don't normally recommending appealing to IAS as it is a kangaroo court allowing only 4% of appeals, however sometimes it is worth it if you keep throwing evidence as them; depends how secure you think your case is.

Would the allowance of a grace period be a strong enough argument

If you mean that there should be a grace period (as per their Code of Practice) but there wasn't then yes it is one argument.

Fruitcake

rdw_06 said:

Coupon-mad said:

To be clear, no-one is saying to pay. 

Either do IAS for the laugh, or don't.

But don't PAY unless a Judge says so.  And I don't mean IAS' finest,  Bryn Holloway...

Thank you, I will draft the appeal and post here before sending.  I was thinking to appeal to IAS with a 2-word cryptic challenge 🤬but I don’t think that would go nicely in our favour 😅.  ?? Bryn Holloway.

I suggest you look at the famous response to a claim in the case of Arkell vs Presdram. 

rdw_06

Fruitcake said:

rdw_06 said:

Coupon-mad said:

To be clear, no-one is saying to pay. 

Either do IAS for the laugh, or don't.

But don't PAY unless a Judge says so.  And I don't mean IAS' finest,  Bryn Holloway...

Thank you, I will draft the appeal and post here before sending.  I was thinking to appeal to IAS with a 2-word cryptic challenge 🤬but I don’t think that would go nicely in our favour 😅.  ?? Bryn Holloway.

I suggest you look at the famous response to a claim in the case of Arkell vs Presdram. 

I love it!!! 😂 exactly what I was thinking, but I think this response would sink my battle ship before leaving the harbour 😅🎉🍾

rdw_06

Hi Guys,

Please see draft below - deadline is today!!

I submit this appeal in relation to the ‘Parking Charge Notice to Keeper’ (PCNtK) dated (XXX) (ref XXXX) issued by (EPS) for vehicle registration number (XXXX).  A copy of the notice is included for your reference.  As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wrote to EPS on (XXX) challenging the PCN (NtK).  EPS responded on (XXX) stating that the appeal had been declined.  A copy of this response is included for your reference.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and I appeal, as the registered keeper.

This appeal is made on the following grounds below:

 

1.  Signage - car park not clearly marked or prominent upon entrance

2.  No recognition of compulsory grace period (cooling off period)

3.  Proof of Written authorisation of land owner

 

Signage:

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

EPC have breached the Code of Practice by failing to place upon entrance, additional, conspicuous and legible notice to alert the driver of the consequences should entry be attempted, with consequences of their intentions to take action if breached. 

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge.  Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge.  POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' being:

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by—

(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or

(b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which—

(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.

Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and (POFA 2012), I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the sum on the notice, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance – this is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

The driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms and conditions involving this huge charge, which is disproportionate and anyone reading such signs would not agree to such a contract.  Also, upon entering the premises there were vehicles already parked in front of the driver, blocking the signs that are placed around the premises that are supposed to be used as a deterrent to public parking. 

I put the operator (EPS) 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.

Grace period/cooling off period:

Paragraph 13 of BPA CoP reads as follows:

13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you.  If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

The IAS code of practice and government guidelines also suggest consideration of a period of time to be allowed for a driver to read and understand the terms and conditions applying on controlled land, to identify and access appropriate space in which to park their vehicle, ending when the vehicle is parked, or departs.   In this case the driver had stopped briefly for less than 4 minutes and decided to not accept this contract.

Landowner authority:

There is 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 un-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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, but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.  Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions, which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are (name/job title/employer company), and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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

EPS has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.  In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no PoFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received.  No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever.  Any person(s), with the consent of the registered keeper, may drive a vehicle as long as the driver is insured.  Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay.

I am appealing this PCN (NtK) as the registered keeper.  As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.

In furthering the understanding of keeper liability, Henry Greenslade (the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator) confirmed in 2015 that full compliance with PoFA was required to recover unpaid parking charges.  He states:

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.  If (POFA 2012 Schedule 4) is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be held liable if EPS is not using or complying with Schedule 4 of PoFA.  This appeal demonstrates that EPS has not met the requirements of Schedule 4.

The burden of proof therefore rests with the operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with the terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.  EPS cannot do this.

For the above reasons, I ask as keeper of vehicle (XXX) that my appeal is upheld and PCN (XXX) cancelled.

Attachments:

1)  Parking Charge Notice to Keeper

2)  EPS Appeal Decision

 

Coupon-mad

If this is for IAS did you know it has to be typed from scratch into the box and does not let you copy & paste text you wrote earlier?

Don't use long POPLA style template points.  Just concise points and photo evidence.

Or don't bother...because IAS is a kangaroo court and you will lose.  There is a view to stay under the radar and not do IAS, unless you have an unusual slam dunk point or suspect the PPC might give up (or are happy to test that, knowing you won't be paying even if you lose).

I think you will find, if you log into IAS now, giving your basic PCN data but not submitting anything yet, it will tell you that you have 5 days longer than you think.

rdw_06

Thanks coupon-mad, I logged in - entered the details, but it did not say anything about the amount of days remaining to appeal.  I know the letter does state 21 days (today).  The next page just takes you straight to form filling/personal details etc, so on and so forth.

In your opinion would you just leave it now and wait, or send a short, concise appeal, with photo evidence.  I don't want to waste anymore time or energy at this point if it is not going to be of benefit?  

Coupon-mad

No, go further and fill in the name and address details and (any) date of birth and email. Verify the email. It is just past that stage that it tells you the date deadline to appeal, which is 5 days extra.

Fruitcake

Use a throwaway email address such as gmail, just for dealing with this PCN. That way your personal or family account won't get filled up with threatogrammes.
Don't give any real 'phone numbers if asked for one either.

Take screenshots and if/when you send any emails, send them to yourself as well.

Coupon-mad

I never use my real DOB on websites that don't really need it, either.  The IAS actually ask for a DOB which I find unnecessary and would urge people to use your alternative special 'online DOB' (a date that you can remember, if required to put it in again).