Eurocarparks - POPLA

fisherjim

Your POPLA appeal is in you cannot now introduce extra points or change your appeal, that boat has sailed, you can only now try to debunk the PPC's evidence no more than that.

I think an error as in missing characters is still an error you had a chance to agree the display or not before verifying.

It's an unregulated industry, using equipment banned for use in authority run car parks, they are allowed to get away with it because no one regulates it.

They are basically selling time with unapproved not fit for purpose technology and get away with it, a greengrocer or butcher wouldn't get away with unapproved scales but then they are regulated.  

In the end as CM states don't get too hung up on the outcome, ECP aren't likely to take this any further than scary letters from silly debt collectors anyway.

Littlekay23

Thanks. I have read a few people had court things they had to attend as they didn’t pay etc. I’m to the understanding if you fail in court you’ve the court fees to pay as well. (If it got to that stage ). Will see what comes back when I write back

would have Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. 

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent': 

Covers the comments around key error 

as a key error is inputting something incorrect. If it’s not inserted technically it’s not incorrect. But that could be my black and white dyslexic brain

KeithP

Littlekay23 said:

as a key error is inputting something incorrect. If it’s not inserted technically it’s not incorrect. But that could be my black and white dyslexic brain

The keying error is failing to enter the vehicle's registration mark correctly.
That's my black and white interpretation.  

Fruitcake

You have six days not seven to rebut the PPC's response. Trust me, I know this to be true.

You have 2000 characters to rebut what the PPC has said in their response to your PoPLA appeal.

If they have failed to address any of your points, then you must tell PoPLA they must find allow your appeal on those points.

Littlekay23

Fruitcake said:

You have six days not seven to rebut the PPC's response. Trust me, I know this to be true.

You have 2000 characters to rebut what the PPC has said in their response to your PoPLA appeal.

If they have failed to address any of your points, then you must tell PoPLA they must find allow your appeal on those points.

They didn’t address dyslexia or referencing it within the reply back. Just said ‘ drivers reasonability to inserting the full reg and read signs ‘ I also said about the £100 / £20 not being out of control as they’ve not lost any money me parking there as I paid. 

They didn’t acknowledge it to say anything about being out of pocket and just refered back to the signs 

Fruitcake

Being out of pocket/no loss went out the window in 2015 with the infamous Beavis case, but if they haven't mentioned that point in their response, or any other point, then you should still mention it.

Coupon-mad

"have read a few people had court things they had to attend as they didn’t pay etc."

Not from ECP.  That's why I said don't do anything when you lose at POPLA.

I'm also uncomfortable that you are accepting that it was you who only input the two digits.  Far better not to take the fault and just leave it open so you can later say (if ever it gets to court, which it won't) the machine printed just 2 letters despite the driver inputting the VRM.  It is a keying error by the way.  Caused by the machine.

The only way to (usually) win a POPLA appeal v ECP is if the £100 was in small print on the signs - that is what your comments should say.

Don't put stuff about it not being a keying error, or about dyslexia.

Littlekay23

Coupon-mad said:

"have read a few people had court things they had to attend as they didn’t pay etc."

Not from ECP.  That's why I said don't do anything when you lose at POPLA.

I'm also uncomfortable that you are accepting that it was you who only input the two digits.  Far better not to take the fault and just leave it open so you can later say (if ever it gets to court, which it won't) the machine printed just 2 letters despite the driver inputting the VRM.  It is a keying error by the way.  Caused by the machine.

The only way to (usually) win a POPLA appeal v ECP is if the £100 was in small print on the signs - that is what your comments should say.

Don't put stuff about it not being a keying error, or about dyslexia.

Btw. Since the. ECP have been to the car park as the signs have changed to now saying it’s £5 for two hours. When I was there it was £4.50. So the signs / machine could have been changed tampered with. Is it worth referencing this ?

i.e i returned back to site and can confirm the signs currently do not match what ECP have submitted. The signs now state it is £5 for 2hrs. When I parked it was £4.50 as per images ECP submitted. Therefore it is clear someone has been to the site and has amended signage and could well have done something with the machine. 

Other things j have written so far is as follows. ( character limit depending ) 

They still state Breach of Terms and Conditions – ‘No valid pay and display/permit was purchased’ Despite evidence of the ticket including bank. They contradict this as they then say ‘however they’ve been a major key error ‘ They also state ‘£20 administration charge is now due ‘ ‘but then later on say this is void which is conflicting information. 

I returned back to site and can confirm the signs currently do not match what ECP have submitted. The signs now state it is £5 for 2hrs. When I parked it was £4.50 as per images ECP submitted. Therefore it is clear someone has been to the site and has amended signage and could well have done something with the machine. 

They failed to reference anything around the £100 fine being disproportionate as they’ve made no loss by me parking here and paying to park. Someone else could have not paid and still received the same fine. 

Furthermore signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras. 

The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. 

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because this car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. 

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign states:

“We are using automatic number plate recognition and/or handheld cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates to monitor and enforce the above term and conditions.” 

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states

“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).” 

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. 

I also refer to Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency: 

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. 

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible. 

 Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. 

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent': 

B789

You seem to be spending a lot of effort on something that is not going to go anywhere, whether you win or lose at POPLA. You've been told to stop worrying.

Coupon-mad

Littlekay23 said:

Coupon-mad said:

"have read a few people had court things they had to attend as they didn’t pay etc."

Not from ECP.  That's why I said don't do anything when you lose at POPLA.

I'm also uncomfortable that you are accepting that it was you who only input the two digits.  Far better not to take the fault and just leave it open so you can later say (if ever it gets to court, which it won't) the machine printed just 2 letters despite the driver inputting the VRM.  It is a keying error by the way.  Caused by the machine.

The only way to (usually) win a POPLA appeal v ECP is if the £100 was in small print on the signs - that is what your comments should say.

Don't put stuff about it not being a keying error, or about dyslexia.

Btw. Since the. ECP have been to the car park as the signs have changed to now saying it’s £5 for two hours. When I was there it was £4.50. So the signs / machine could have been changed tampered with. Is it worth referencing this ?

i.e i returned back to site and can confirm the signs currently do not match what ECP have submitted. The signs now state it is £5 for 2hrs. When I parked it was £4.50 as per images ECP submitted. Therefore it is clear someone has been to the site and has amended signage and could well have done something with the machine. 

Other things j have written so far is as follows. ( character limit depending ) 

They still state Breach of Terms and Conditions – ‘No valid pay and display/permit was purchased’ Despite evidence of the ticket including bank. They contradict this as they then say ‘however they’ve been a major key error ‘ They also state ‘£20 administration charge is now due ‘ ‘but then later on say this is void which is conflicting information. 

I returned back to site and can confirm the signs currently do not match what ECP have submitted. The signs now state it is £5 for 2hrs. When I parked it was £4.50 as per images ECP submitted. Therefore it is clear someone has been to the site and has amended signage and could well have done something with the machine. 

They failed to reference anything around the £100 fine being disproportionate as they’ve made no loss by me parking here and paying to park. Someone else could have not paid and still received the same fine. 

Furthermore signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras. 

The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. 

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because this car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. 

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign states:

“We are using automatic number plate recognition and/or handheld cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates to monitor and enforce the above term and conditions.” 

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states

“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).” 

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. 

I also refer to Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency: 

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. 

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible. 

 Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. 

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent': 

Scrap all of the above and just put the ONLY thing that I advised you to put.