ECP DCB Legal default CCJ - Claims form not received, seems to be CNBC error

Birkum

Many thanks Coupon-mad and B789. I have now modified the comments based on your feedback as written below. Hope POPLA takes positive decision for me.

1. Euro Car park has only shown images from May -22, July -22, August-22 which are months ago and are irrelevant as my appeal already showed that those signs were removed.  It was for Euro Car park to evidence when they were removed to respond to the point made in the appeal that there were no signs as major building work was going to start but they haven't discharged that burden. There is one image on 1st December 22, the only reason Euro Car Parks (who temporarily in 2022 operated this site remotely, by ANPR, with no manual patrols) would have sent an employee on foot - who took that single image on 1st December - was clearly only to take one photo then dismantle the signage to clear it for the building work. This explains why no signs were there by 11th December, as the appeal stated.

2. Zoomed out the photo at the beginning of point 7 by the operator shows signage on the periphery, even in that photo there is no signage in the middle part of the  parking at all

3. The landowner Document on page no 15 shows a start date of 01/05/22. The bottom picture provided by the operator on page 28, and the picture on page 29,  in blue paint and yellow, the writing says we are closed. This is from a Poundland shop that closed mid of the year, this parking was free and used by Poundland shoppers, I had used it before a couple of times. It was the operator's responsibility to install extra signage to notify of this change of ownership. Also please look at the positioning and alignment of these two pay machines, it is impossible to even notice them as it is at the far end and turned towards the opposite side and the front of it faces trees and we are closed side of the sign in the photos mentioned above

KeithP

Birkum said:

Hope the POPLA officer takes positive decision for me.

What's a POPLA officer?                    

Le_Kirk

Maybe "adjudicator"

Birkum

KeithP said:

Birkum said:

Hope the POPLA officer takes positive decision for me.

What's a POPLA officer?                    

Someone who is working and doing the job for POPLA, I removed the word officer to make you happy

Birkum

I have submitted my response this morning as below. Thank you to Coupon-mad and B789 for the help. Now wait for the result starts......

1. Euro Car park has only shown images from May -22, July -22, August-22 which are months ago and are irrelevant as my appeal already showed that those signs were removed.  It was for Euro Car park to evidence when they were removed to respond to the point made in the appeal that there were no signs as major building work was going to start but they haven't discharged that burden. There is one image on 1st December 22, the only reason Euro Car Parks (who temporarily in 2022 operated this site remotely, by ANPR, with no manual patrols) would have sent an employee on foot - who took that single image on 1st December - was clearly only to take one photo then dismantle the signage to clear it for the building work. This explains why no signs were there by 11th December, as the appeal stated.

2. Zoomed out the photo at the beginning of point 7 by the operator shows signage on the periphery, even in that photo there is no signage in the middle part of the parking at all. This parking is quite big and there must be signage in the middle part of the parking, as that is where I had parked my vehicle and there was no signage seen 

3. The landowner Document on page no 15 shows a start date of 01/05/22. In the bottom picture provided by the operator on page 28, and the picture on page 29,  in blue paint and yellow, the writing says we are closed. This is from a Poundland shop that closed mid of the year, this parking was free and used by Poundland shoppers, I had used it before a couple of times. It was the operator's responsibility to install extra signage to notify of this change of ownership. Also please look at the positioning and alignment of these two pay machines, it is impossible to even notice them as it is at the far end and turned towards the opposite side and the front of it faces trees and the closed side of the sign in the photos mentioned above. The photos provided by the operator only solidify that it was impossible to even notice a pay machine.

4. The operator has not discharged their burden by providing very old photographs, making it very clear that there was a lack of signage as they were removed for the building work. On the contrary, what they have provided further solidifies that there was no signage in the middle part of the parking from the zoomed-out image, and also the photos and position of the pay machine show it is located in an area that makes it impossible to be noticed.

B789

Without having to go back through all the posts, is this your appeal to POPLA or a defence against a claim?

Birkum

B789, this is my comment on the evidence presented to Popla by the operator...which means
1. I have appealed with evidence
2. Popla asked operator to counter and operator sent evidence
3. I was asked to provide my comments against the operators evidence - that I have done now with the points from my last post

Next stage is Popla review on this case and decision

Birkum

Dear members, Today I got a rejection on my POPLA  appeal. Some of the points looks like cut paste for example at one place it says I mentioned that I was trying to pay parking charges etc which I never mentioned in my appeal.

Here is the extract from the POPLA rejection:

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • The entrance signs are inadequate. • The signs are not lit, prominent or clear. • The signs do not highlight the parking charge clearly. • The operator has not provided any evidence that they have the authority to operator on this land. • The NTK does not comply with PoFa 2012. • The ANPR system is no reliable or accurate. • The signs fail to warn users of how the ANPR data will be used. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided an appeal document with photos taken on the date in question, images of the signs and comparisons of the signs along with images of the site as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

 

Birkum

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case the appellant has admitted to being the driver of the vehicle to the operator at the initial stage of their appeal. As such I will be considering their liability as the driver. Therefore the requirement to comply with PoFA 2012 does not apply in this case. When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have reviewed the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs within the car park which state: “TARIFF UP TO 30 MINUTES £0.70.. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (£60 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS OF ISSUE) PURCHASE AND RETAIN A VALID TICKET OR HAVE A VALID ECPparkbuddy SESSION FOR THE LENGTH OF YOUR STAY” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 14:59 and exiting at 15:24. A total stay of 25 minutes. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signage containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” Paragraph 19.3 also explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity. Section 19.2 of the BPA code of practice which states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use” Having reviewed appendix B also, this refers to entrance signs and when there may be impractical reasons to display them, such as, when the car park is very small. Having reviewed the signage within the case file, I am satisfied that the signs have met the requirements of section 19.2. this is because the operator has shown that there is an entrance sign displayed on the left hand side of the car park, which the driver had the opportunity to see on entry to the car park. This sign advised them to read the further terms and conditions within the car park. Therefore, it was down to the appellant to read the further terms and conditions within the car park itself. Section 22.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice which requires operator’s to be transparent regarding its use of ANPR cameras and the data they capture to ensure that it is captured in a reasonable, consistent, and transparent manner. In this case the operator has provided images of its signage which state “WE ARE USING AUTOMATIC NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION AND/OR HANDHELD CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IMAGES OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES TO MONITOR AND ENFORCE THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS” The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 13.1 states: “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes”. This site offers a consideration period of 5 minutes, which is the requirement of the BPA and I consider is reasonable for the size of the site. I acknowledge that the appellant says that they were trying to make payment, but I do not consider 25 minutes to be a reasonable time for a motorist to remain on site if they could not make payment. The appellant could have left site within the consideration period if they could not make payment via any of the payment methods and they would not have been bound by the terms and conditions. By remaining at the site after the consideration period, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions of the site and also the possible consequences of breaching any of these. When parking at a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the terms and conditions. As the appellant failed to pay for the duration of their stay, the terms of the site were breached. The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 7.1 of the code confirms that if an operator does not own the land on which it is carrying out parking management, it must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. This must confirm the operator has the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that it is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner or agent requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice, the details of the land and that it has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, and on reviewing this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The matter of parking charges was considered in the Supreme Court (ParkingEye vs Beavis 2015). The judgement ruled that parking operators can issue PCNs to motorists who breach the terms as long the signage is clear on the charges and the charge is in the region of £85. In this case, the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. If the appellant wishes to read more about this case, it can be found here ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) - The Supreme Court The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase a valid pay and display ticket and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Birkum

What is the general advise please to move forward from here