PCN from ECP

Tech_Bear

7. No Evidence of Landowner Authority ‐ the operator is put to strict

proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

 

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an

unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any ‘site agreement’ or

'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions ‐ such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine

resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights ‐ is key evidence

to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms

on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is

contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also

authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge

in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a

landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre‐signed, generic

documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in

some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the

definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace

periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of

Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement

applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has

authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to

charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private

parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator

to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must

ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to

legal action being taken.

7.3 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

 

 

1505grandad

Some observations  -  you should be using/quoting BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020  -  the para numbers/wording is different from those in your appeal

Driver admitted so any POFA 2012 references not applicable.

Tech_Bear

Thank you for the feedback, it's very much appreciated
I'll get the BPA CoP stuff amended 👍

Coupon-mad

Tech_Bear said:

Thank you CM I'm working on my popla draft today
Kicking myself as this looks like a non-compliant pofa ntk? pretty sure I filled the ecp appeal stuff online as the driver, but can't remember?! 

Include it anyway.

Tech_Bear

Hi all
Firstly, many thanks for the fantastic help received from the regulars on this group. 
Today I heard from POPLA advising that ECP have withdrawn my appeal and that no further action is needed. I called POPLA for more details, but all they could tell me is that ECP said I was within the grace period. 

Coupon-mad

Tech_Bear said:

Hi all
Firstly, many thanks for the fantastic help received from the regulars on this group. 
Today I heard from POPLA advising that ECP have withdrawn my appeal and that no further action is needed. I called POPLA for more details, but all they could tell me is that ECP said I was within the grace period. 

Indeed.

As you told us you stated in your first appeal:

As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) it is my understanding that you should allow your customers a 10 minute grace period to return back to their vehicle. As stated on the letter you sent to me, the time spent in the car park was 2 hours 10 minutes. So I am upset that this letter has been sent to me, as you should be adhering to the BPA’s code of practice.

So ... errmmm ... why did they get your data?