ECP NTK for overstaying when store was closed

1505grandad

Also they have exhibited two sets of photos with a date that does not relate to the parking event date.

Just before the pics of OPs car they quote BPA CoP para 13.4 as the 10mins grace period  -  13.4 actually states:-

"13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum

time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in

spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders,

pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as

hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and

exit ramps etc"

Wonder what else they have got wrong  -  unless of course they are quoting from the very latest as yet unpublished BPA CoP

superworm

@Coupon-mad
that's right. There is not a single signage which calls out the store operating hour which allegedly has been breached.

Parking at the above site is limited to 180 minutes Monday to Saturday 06:00 hours to 21:00 hours / Sunday 10:00 hours to 18:00 hours. There is a maximum stay of 10 minutes outside of these hours.

The above has not been indicated in any signage.

Coupon-mad

That is ALL you need to say. Make it simple.

superworm

Thanks @Coupon-mad
I've submitted the following. Fingers crossed. Posting here if someone else is in a similar situation to benefit from.

Subject: Evidence pack comments and rebuttal.

Dear POPLA Assessor,

The evidence pack Euro Car Parks have provided appears to be a quick template copy

and paste document, ignoring many of my points completely, giving incorrect and

contradictory information and therefore strengthening the points I made.

I wish to specifically highlight the following comments on the evidence pack.

1. On page 3 of the evidence pack, they reiterate that 

"Parking at the above site is limited to 180 minutes Monday to Saturday 06:00 hours to 21:00 hours / Sunday 10:00 hours to 18:00 hours. There is a maximum stay of 10 minutes outside of these hours."

As in my appeal, I reiterate that there is no visible or legible sign that allows anyone to consider the above restrictions.

As ECP themselves seem to have acknowledged in the their evidence pack, None of the photographs submitted highlight the operating hours nor the above mentioned restriction. 

2. The BPA code of practice requirement clearly states in Appendix B "The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead."

In the evidence pack, page 34, ECP themselves have provided evidence of poor location of the signage on the entrance and the approach ramp.

At the entrance, any driver will have to look to the left towards the passenger window whilst approaching a narrow entry point to make note of any signage. Even here, the sign highlights "Camera and attendant controlled parking. Maximum stay 3 hours". Any other words on the signage is not readable, not understandable, especially in the late evening hours without proper lighting.

On the same page 34 of the evidence pack, ECP themselves highlight the fact that there is "some" sign on the right hand side of the driver whilst making a sharp LEFT turn at the entrance. 

I submit that this sign cannot be read by any driver who places safety above anything else, as reading this signage whilst driving will be hazardous.

Once again, none of these signs offer any information about the operating times which resulted in the alleged breach.

In their evidence pack, page 11 Point 6, ECP suggests that the "Appelant remained on the site for 1hr 59 minutes" confirming to the Maximum stay of 3 hours as highlighted in several of the signage. 

Bullet point 2 on the same page claims the signage clearly states the terms and conditions of the parking. However, the signage does not clearly state the terms and conditions by not providing the operating hours on any of the signage. As acknowledged by ECP in the evidence pack, none of the signs highlight the actual terms and conditions of the alleged breach.

On bullet 3, ECP claims that the signage is visible when entering the car park, but this signage, as stated above, is not readable by drivers safely, thereby constituting a breach of BPA Code of Practice appendix B which sets the requirements for the entrance signs should be readable by drivers WITHOUT their needing to look away from the road ahead.

To read any of the signage as highlighted in the evidence pack, you will clearly note that the only way is to be standing on the driving path, therefore extremely risky and not placed safely. 

As submitted in my POPLA appeal, even if someone was to risk and be 4 feet away from any of the signs, the only legible words are "Maximum stay 3 hours".

In evening time under poor lighting conditions, as highlighted by the image in page 29 of the evidence pack, even if one were to be standing right opposite to these signage, none of the other wording is readable under such conditions EXCEPT "Maximum stay 3 hours"

3. Regarding Landowner Authority, ECP wrote on page 12 “Landowner Authority contract between Euro Car Parks and Institute Road - Kings Heath – figure 4.”

Figure 4 starting on page 20 of the evidence is titled “British Parking Association Code of Practice”, this does not appear to show Landowner Authority.

In their evidence pack ECP have not proven me incorrect on any one of my points raised in my POPLA appeal and have shown to be giving contradictory and confusing information.

As a final note, I also hope in future ECP take more care with appellants’ personal data.

I again respectfully request that the appeal be upheld.

Yours Faithfully,

superworm

@Coupon-mad
sadly the appeal was unsuccessful

I hadn't noticed that POPLA had made a decision. I received a letter from debt collector stating an amount of £155. I wonder what recourse I have. The original amount was £85 but £155 is extortion.

What can I do, any advice will be much appreciated. 

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice as the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a letter outlining their appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I will summarise the key grounds of appeal below. • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned, and other signs are not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided their own images to support this statement. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • The signs fail to warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a letter of appeal with supporting images as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 7.1 of the Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the operator has provided a signed agreement with the landowner “Sainsburys” and as such, I am satisfied the operator has sufficient authority on the date of the parking event. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The appellant says the entrance signs are inadequately positioned, and other signs are not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided their own images to support this statement. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows there is sufficient entrance signage for the site. Even from reviewing one of the images provided by the appellant, the entrance signage is clearly visible on approach to the entrance to the car park. As such, I am satisfied this complies with section 19.2 Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator has demonstrated the car park is a multi-storey of possibly 4 or 5 levels and there are approximately 28 signs throughout this site. These signs make it clear to motorists that the site offers a 3 hour maximum stay during store hours, and then a 10 minute maximum stay outside of store hours. From reviewing images provided by the appellant, these images are taken from a distance however, it would be their responsibility to walk up to these signs, ensure they read and understand them before agreeing to park. If the driver of the vehicle chooses to ignore the terms and continue to park, they are accepting liability and are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge to the operator. Euro Car Parks has demonstrated the contravention took place on a Sunday and therefore Sunday Trading Laws would apply to the store, and it would shut around 5pm or 6pm. As such, the motorist would only be entitled to a maximum stay of 10 minutes. The ANPR images show the vehicle was on site for 1 hour and 59 minutes and therefore, breached the maximum stay. Upon reviewing the signage provided by the operator, the signage states, “Please observe the following conditions to avoid a parking charge notice of £85.” This is clear, and the charge is in a box of different colour, within the body of the signage and is easily drawn attention to. As such, I am satisfied this complies with section 19.4 and would have been visible had the motorist reviewed the signage in its entirety. Section 22.1 of the Code states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” Within the operator’s case file, Euro Car Parks has provided evidence of signage on site, and this has been confirmed by the appellants own images, and states, “We are using Automatic Number Plate Recognised and/or handheld cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates to monitor and enforce the above terms and conditions” As such, I am satisfied it informs motorists and complies with section 22.1. If the motorist did not wish to be bound by this, then they should have left the site. After considering the evidence from both parties, exceeded the maximum stay by 1 hour and 49 minutes and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

UncleThomasCobley

Ignore the POPLA rejection and move on with your life. Ignore the inevitable debt collector letters that are now going to follow.

If/when you receive an LoC, read the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread and follow the advice in there.

Coupon-mad

It's not sad or surprising to lose at POPLA.

As expected.

Where did POPLA get fed this rubbish from?!  Reads like it is straight from the BPA:

Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission.

Laughable. Thank goodness POPLA is going and making way for a proper service.