POPLA appeal - ECP - Non compliant NTH, vehicle not in car park. Wigan Robin Park Service Yard

ParkingPie

Good evening all,

I have read many of the posts, replies, templates etc on here and have found it invaluable. Through much searching, I have still not found a case similar to mine (I know you advise on the Newbies section not to say this!) so I was hoping that if I posted the details, somebody regular may remember or be able to point me in the direction of a similar issue. In addition, I thought that if I was ultimately successful on appeal, I should post on here and allow other users to benefit from my case.

I received a Notice to Hirer through the post after Euro Car Parks contacted my lease company with a Notice to Keeper PCN. They gave my company contact details as the hirer to ECP (no personal names) and they also emailed me a copy of the original NTK.

The Notice to Hirer was not sent with any other documentation, as is required by Schedule 4 of PoFA. So I appealed to ECP on this technicality alone (more on this below) using the Edna Basher template for leased vehicles, on behalf of the company, without naming a driver.

I subsequently received a letter from ECP rejecting my appeal, stating:

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

 The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay on site.

 The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. The signage quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a Parking Charge Notice will be issued.

 On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

 The signage onsite clearly states ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, your vehicle was not authorised to park in Robin Lane Leisure Park Service Yard – your full and correct vehicle registration was not registered via the console located on the premises, therefore the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and remains payable.

 Please be advised that it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and UK serviceable address of who was driving the vehicle within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.

As you have not provided a UK serviceable address, liability has been transferred back to you as the Registered Keeper.

For info, the PCN stated that the driver of the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of use (as outlined on signage throughout the site), with the contravention being: Your vehicle was not authorised to park.

I don't believe that the car was actually parked in the Service Yard described. This is my major issue here, but I did not mention this in my appeal to ECP as I thought the technicality of the non-compliant NTH would be a bit of a slam dunk in any case. However, now that I am appealing via POPLA, I think it would be appropriate to add this extra detail in also. I'm not sure whether not having mentioned this to ECP before harms my POPLA appeal?

Anyway, any thoughts on this would be very much appreciated:

The driver was convinced at the time that the vehicle was not parked in the Service Yard but I went back to further investigate and take some photos and I have prepared a plan of the site detailing my findings (see link - ah, I can't post links yet).

The Service Yard seems to be self contained, with various obvious car parking areas which are enclosed by hedges and a couple of (always closed) barriers. There is one entrance, also with a large barrier (usually open) that has a private sign on it that says "Service Yard Gate". The principal ECP 'entrance sign' is adjacent to this gate, and this is where the CCTV camera is attached, pointing away from the entrance. The sign generally looks ok and probably compliant. The vehicle was parked on the road leading up to this gate and the ECP entrance sign, and there are no further signs or road markings before this along the approach road. At no point did the vehicle enter the Service Yard by passing either the ECP entrance sign or the "Service Yard Gate". So whilst the driver noticed the sign, they at no point thought that the terms and conditions applied as they had not entered or parked within the 'car park'. Interestingly, on the original NTK, the photos of the vehicle/registration showed the position/location of the parked car. On the NTH, they only provided timed photos of the registration plates. Why would they include different photos between the NTK and NTH?

I grabbed what looked like the latest successful POPLA appeal template from the forum (Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal Draft - Spyro101) and was thinking of keeping the following parts:
1) Operator failed to deliver a compliant NTH
2) Operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable
3) No evidence of landowner authority
I then wanted to put a section about the vehicle not being in the car park next - is this a variation of inadequate signage or something a bit different? It feels as though if the car is not considered to be in the car park, then it isn't about inadequate signage, rather about failure to demarcate the boundaries of the site? Or simply ECP taking the proverbial and issuing PCNs for cars not even in the car park anyway?

Any comments or pointers would be very much appreciated!

Coupon-mad

I don't believe that the car was actually parked in the Service Yard described. This is my major issue here, but I did not mention this in my appeal to ECP as I thought the technicality of the non-compliant NTH would be a bit of a slam dunk in any case. However, now that I am appealing via POPLA, I think it would be appropriate to add this extra detail in also. I'm not sure whether not having mentioned this to ECP before harms my POPLA appeal?

Nope that's fine and everything you've planned looks good. You'll win it, or ECP will offer no contest.

I'd have the point about the car not actually going past that gate as a separate point, with photos and your home-drawn site plan embedded to make the point crystal clear.

You can show us photos.  So you could show us a screenshot.

ParkingPie

Coupon-mad said:

You can show us photos.  So you could show us a screenshot.

Ah, so I can!! Thanks. Here they are:

View towards the entrance sign and entrance gate. Vehicle was parked by the bush on the right.ECP Entrance Sign:Entrance Sign on approach to entrance gate:Entrance gate just beyond ECP Entrance Sign:

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't show that close up of the sign. The other 3 pics are good for POPLA appeals.

 I thought the technicality of the non-compliant NTH would be a bit of a slam dunk.

It is.

ParkingPie

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't show that close up of the sign. The other 3 pics are good for POPLA appeals.

Ok, I'll leave that one out. Thanks for the advice!