Advice Needed - PCN appeal rejected Euro Car Parks

ParkingMad_2023

Hi, 

I was wondering if someone could help on what to do next. 

I parked at a Euro Car Parks car park just after 6pm where day parking is up to 8pm. Upon buying my ticket the ticket machine does not let you pay past 8pm so assumed parking was free past 8pm. 

I shortly after received a PCN after leaving the car park at 20:43. 

I appealed the PCN stating that the machine would not let you purchase a ticket past 8pm which they rejected and said the signs clearly state that a night rate of £2.00 is due after 8pm. I have never experienced a car park where you need to go back to the machine after 8pm to purchase another ticket so naturally I assumed that parking was free after 8pm. 

In my appeal I clearly stated that the machine would not let me pay past 8pm and in no way did I purposely try to avoid paying £2.00. How does this warrant a £60.00 fine?!

I received their appeal rejection 01/11/23 and have 14 days to pay £60.00. 

What should I do next? 

 

KeithP

ParkingMad_2023 said:

What should I do next? 

Now you need to be preparing a PoPLA appeal as described in the third post of the NEWBIES thread.

ParkingMad_2023

KeithP said:

ParkingMad_2023 said:

What should I do next? 

Now you need to be preparing a PoPLA appeal as described in the third post of the NEWBIES thread.

There are so many templates I just don't know where to start. I have to submit the PoPLA tomorrow (14/11/23) Can someone point me in the right direction please????

Coupon-mad

Yes, the third post of the NEWBIES thread.  You won't find any other POPLA direction.

That's the thread to sit down and use.  That and POPLA DECISIONS which helpfully for you, reported several wins this past year v ECP, based on two winning points of appeal that you can read all about there.

You don't have to do it by tomorrow. It's not 28 days it's 33. We know what we are doing.

KeithP

You told us...

ParkingMad_2023 said:

I received their appeal rejection 01/11/23...

Didn't your appeal rejection letter from ECP state you have 28 days to appeal to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

I suspect they are wrongly thinking that the 14 days reoffering the laughable 'discount' bribe is somehow important.

ParkingMad_2023

Phew. Sorry, you are correct its 28 days to submit PoPLA appeal. So would need to be submitted by 29/11/23. 

I will study the third post in the NEWBIES thread and hopefully come back with my draft. 

Thank you for your help. This is stressful

Coupon-mad

 It's actually 33 days like I said. Loads of time.

ParkingMad_2023

Hello, I have prepared a POPLA appeal - draft below. Please let me know if I should change anything. 

POPLA Verification Code: XXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXX

Euro Car Parks PCN No: XXXX

Date: 27th November 2023

 

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered hirer of vehicle XXX and I am appealing a parking charge received from UKPC. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and request that they are all considered.

1.     No evidence to show that the APNR system is reliable

2.     Failure to provide the contract to evidence that Euro Car Parks has any Standing or Authority to pursue charges or form contracts (Locus Standii)

3.     The signage was non-compliant with the BPA CoP

4.     The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

5.     Unlawful Penalty Charge

6.     Reference to ParkingEye vs Beavis.

 

1.      No evidence to show that the APNR system is reliable.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
Euro Car Parks has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.

 

2.     Failure to provide the contract to evidence that Euro Car Parks has any Standing or Authority to pursue charges or form contracts (Locus Standii)
Euro Car Parks has not produced any evidence to show that they have any legal right to issue charges on behalf of the landowner. There is also no proof that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. It is my contention that this witness statement should be disregarded as unreliable, not proving full BPA compliance and is not sufficient to prove that Euro Car Parks have the necessary legal standing at this location to bring a claim in their own name nor to form any contractual relationship between the landowner and motorists. I also refer to the fact that the “old” POPLA service ALWAYS found in favour of the appellant where the PPC had not proved that they had the authority of the landowner, in accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Please note that this practice included disregarding any evidence not shown to an appellant, so the operator cannot add it now to consider. The Operator has not shown a full unredacted copy of the contract that allows them to act (as detailed above).

For clarity, the BPA Code clearly states that
“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”

Euro Car Parks has not provided the adjudicator any evidence to show that they have authority to issue charges in line with the BPA Code. The Operators evidence fails to show any of the BPA requirements then the omissions must be interpreted in the way which favours the consumer. I request that you uphold my appeal on this point.

3.     The signage was non-compliant with the BPA CoP
The signage is, I believe, non-compliant. The signs are badly placed, full of overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. No where is it stated that an additional ticket must be purchased after 8pm if you have already purchased a ticket.

 

Any photos supplied by Euro Car Parks to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera & flash and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require Euro Car Parks to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs in the dark without the aid of flash photography. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Euro Car Parks are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand or close enough to every ticket purchase machine. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity and frequency) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v MartinCutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]

4.     The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of the vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is unreliable I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

I also claim that the signs at the car park do not clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA CoP breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

The charge is founded entirely on two photos of the vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times. I put Euro Car Parks to provide strict proof that their ANPR system is not fundamentally flawed because of known issues such as missing checks and maintenance of the timer/cameras and the possibility of two visits being recorded as one. The Operator's proof must show checks relating to the vehicle, not vague statements about any maintenance checks carried out at other times.

 

 

5.     Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OB Services v Thurlow(review, February 2011), ParkingEye v Smith (Manchester County Court December2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

The carpark in question charges £2.00 past 20:00pm until 08:00am. The £100 charge is punitive and not any representation of any loss incurred.

 

Regards, 

KeithP

Your proposed appeal starts with the words "I am the registered hirer of vehicle..." (and then gives the registration mark in full).

This is the first time you have mentioned that the vehicle is hired.
Has the parking company supplied you with all the documentation required by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA?

ParkingMad_2023

KeithP said:

Your proposed appeal starts with the words "I am the registered hirer of vehicle..." (and then gives the registration mark in full).

This is the first time you have mentioned that the vehicle is hired.
Has the parking company supplied you with all the documentation required by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA?

No I haven't received that. I only got the PCN which I appealed followed by the rejection letter. The PCN is titled 'NOTICE TO HIRER' (The car is on lease) 

Do I need to do something different?