Euro car parks Morrisons POPLA appeal advice

SamP92

Hi,

I recently received a notice to keeper for a 26 minute overstay on a euro car park where I received a letter with camera evidence of the car entering and leaving the car park.

I appealed directly to euro car parks internally using the default template in the newbies thread and received the following rejection email.

Date: 

Our Ref: **

Unique POPLA Verification Code: **

Dear ***

Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking Charge Notice are as follows:

  Parking Charge Notice Number: *** Vehicle Registration Mark: ***

The Site: ***

Date of Issue: ***

Time of Issue: **

Breach of Terms and Conditions:

Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed

      Having carefully considered the supporting evidence provided by you, Euro Car Parks (ECP) have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

 The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. ANPR cameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark *** entering and leaving The Site and calculated the duration of stay.

 Parking at The Site is limited to 180 minutes. Your vehicle entered at 18:40:30 and exited at 22:06:06 therefore was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

 Signage located throughout The Site clearly details the terms and conditions. On entry to private land, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure all terms and conditions as detailed on the signage are adhered to.

 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.

 Any form of parking ticket or ‘notice’ is issued under the law ‘of trespass and Contract Law’. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.

  C1 MB

 AR/MS/v.001

 

 The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges are that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms − for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable.

 With regards to the reference to “Pre-Estimate of Loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999.” Please be advised that the Supreme Court has made judgement (04/11/15) that clearly sets out the issue of parking charge notices on private land (law of contract applies) and in particular pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge notice is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest when the driver failed to adhere to the terms and conditions and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

-It’s the driver’s responsibility to check the signage prior to leaving the vehicle on site. -Contract Law Applies

The parking charge notice has been issued correctly and remains payable.

Please use one of the following options below to make payment for the amount of £60.00:

1. Online: By visiting https://www.eurocarparks.com/pay-a-parking-charge/

2. Phone: Use the automated telephone service 0203 553 4559.

3. Post: Make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (include a £2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.

The parking charge notice will be held for 14 days from the date of this letter to allow time to make payment.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

You can make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the unique POPLA Reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA, or if you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay the discounted amount will no longer be available and the Full Amount of the PCN will be due.

Please note - if the parking charge notice was issued in Scotland and or Northern Ireland, only “The Driver” can appeal to POPLA.

If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit the website, www.popla.co.uk where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If the driver is unable to access the website, please use the contact us page at https://www.popla.co.uk/contact. Please ensure that the POPLA Reference Number as noted above is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA, the parking charge notice will be placed on hold.

Appeals may not be accepted if payment is made against the Parking Charge Notice, including any appeals logged via POPLA.

If you choose to ignore this letter, we will seek to recover the outstanding amount owed to us through the debt recovery process and procedure, this may lead to court action against you.

By law, we are also required to inform you that the Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman- services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be able to assist with your appeal. Please note, we have not chosen to participate in their dispute resolution service and as such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as detailed above.

       

SamP92

I have seen another thread where euro car parks rejected the initial appeal but were successful with POPLA. The below is a copy of the successful appeal letter and I was looking for advice to whether people this would be applicable in this case and how I can improve my chances of winning the appeal.

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, wish to appeal the parking charge issued by Euro Car Parks, as notified in the letter dated xxxxxxx. Despite my initial appeal being rejected on xxxxxxxx, I maintain that I am not liable for the charge for the following reasons:

1. No grace period was granted to the driver, as required by the BPA Code of Practice sections 13.2 and 13.4, which mandate a minimum 10-minute grace period both to decide on staying and after the parking period ends.

2. The operator has not provided proof of Landowner Authority, a necessary compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

3. The car park's signs are neither sufficiently prominent nor clear, lacking proper indication of the parking charge sum.

I am contesting the mentioned 10-minute overstay charge, as it falls within the reasonable grace period outlined by the BPA Code of Practice, making the charge non-compliant with the code and should consequently be revoked.

This stance is supported by section 30.2 of the code concerning ANPR sites, which dictates a minimum 10-minute grace period post the parking event before any enforcement action can be taken. Moreover, Kelvin Reynolds from the BPA emphasizes that the time allocated for drivers to read the signs and decide to adhere to the parking terms should be flexible, considering factors like disabilities which might necessitate more time.

Historically, during a meeting on 30th July 2015, the Professional Development & Standards Board agreed to adjust clause 13.4 in the BPA Code of Practice to denote an 11-minute grace period, in alignment with DfT guidelines, endorsing a unified standard and acknowledging that any duration less than 10 minutes (like the case in point) is reasonable.

Given the BPA acknowledges a minimum 10-minute grace period for exiting a car park, it logically extends to the time required to enter the car park, identify and comprehend the terms and conditions, complete the payment process, and then exit the premises post the stay.

Therefore, the 10-minute overstay claimed by NCP is also unreasonable due to:

a) Insufficient signage in the car park, violating BPA Code of Practice 18.3, which naturally prolongs the time needed to find and understand the signs before agreeing to a contract. b) The inadequacy of sign visibility from both the entrance and parking spots, and their illegibility without leaving the vehicle, as evidenced by the attached pictures.

1. The operator hasn't shown any evidence of having Landowner Authority, which is necessary for full adherence to the BPA Code of Practice.

In this context, I request that the operator present an uncensored version of the contract with the landowner. This contract, alongside any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' illustrating details such as 'genuine customer' or 'resident' exemptions or any 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights sanctioned by site occupiers, is crucial in delineating the extent of the operator's authorization and the situations where the landowner or firms on site have the power to nullify a charge. It should not be presumed that the agent, assigned merely to install signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, possesses the authority to enter into contracts with all categories of drivers visiting the site or to enforce charges in court under their name - a jurisdiction generally reserved for the landowner.

I argue that witness statements cannot be considered reliable evidence for the aforementioned reasons since they tend to be pre-signed, generic documents that often fail to specify the case at hand or the site regulations. Even though POPLA might accept witness statements in some instances, in this case, it's unlikely to adequately demonstrate the services outlined in the agreement by each party.

Moreover, such statements do not disclose crucial information like charging schedules, possible exemption clauses, grace periods (which might exceed the minimum durations outlined in the BPA CoP), and fundamental details such as the exact land boundary and specific bays subject to enforcement. They also lack confirmation of the various restrictions approved by the landowner that can incur a charge and the actual amount the landowner permits this agent to levy (which cannot be presumed to be the figure noted in small print on a sign since standardized private parking terms and amounts may vary from the authentic landowner agreement).

I insist that the operator meets the compulsory stipulations mentioned in Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP, which mandates the operator to present substantial proof of:

7.2 Obtaining the landowner's (or their designated agent's) written consent before initiating any legal action concerning unpaid parking charges.

7.3 The written approval should explicitly illustrate:

a. A clear delineation of the land where operations are permitted.

b. Any conditions or limitations imposed on parking control and enforcement, including restrictions on operational hours.

c. Specific conditions or restrictions concerning the kinds of vehicles subject to, or exempt from, parking control and enforcement.

d. Identification of the entity responsible for installing and maintaining signs.

e. A precise description of the services each party agrees to in the contract.

3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

Neither the Notice to Keeper nor appeal rejection from Euro Car Parks contain any photographic or any other evidence in support of Euro Car Parks request for payment.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself when viewed from a vehicle.It should be noted that at entrance sign 

“The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers

without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any

text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle

can be of a much smaller size”

As you can see from the attached photos of the entrance parking sign it is not legible for drivers entering the car park from the left.


There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:


''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''


''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a '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.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point.

I appreciate this initial appeal may have included photos of the specific case that was being appealed. As this is my first time in appealing to POPLA, I am looking for guidance so I can tailor my appeal

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and the keeper's MP. Has this been done yet, especially if the keeper and their family are regular Morrison's shoppers. Proof of patronage/Morrison's More card should be attached.

Have you compared the NTK with the examples in the Picture thread? I believe it was recently discovered that ECP NTKs are not PoFA compliant, so this should be your point 1.

I don't think you will get for using the lack of grace periods point for an alleged 26 minute overstay, but if the car park was busy, then the fact that driving around looking for a space is not parking, and ANPR scameras only record time on site, not time parked, then it should be included.

Use all the points available to you, where relevant, from the third post of the NEWBIES.

Non-PoFA compliant NTK
Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures
Time on site is not parking time
Anything else relevant

1505grandad

Also that must be an old post using out of date BPA CoP  -  you should be using version 8 dated January 2020

JerryJ64

One stop cancellation process:

www.morrisons.com/help/form/contact-us/in-store-experience/car-parks/i-have-received-a-parking-charge-for-parking-in-your-car-park

Umkomaas

JerryJ64 said:

One stop cancellation process:

www.morrisons.com/help/form/contact-us/in-store-experience/car-parks/i-have-received-a-parking-charge-for-parking-in-your-car-park

Useful link @JerryJ64 - I will use that for future Morrisons parking cases. Thank you.

Etccarmageddon

Fruitcake said:

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and the keeper's MP. Has this been done yet, especially if the keeper and their family are regular Morrison's shoppers. Proof of patronage/Morrison's More card should be attached.

Have you compared the NTK with the examples in the Picture thread? I believe it was recently discovered that ECP NTKs are not PoFA compliant, so this should be your point 1.

I don't think you will get for using the lack of grace periods point for an alleged 26 minute overstay, but if the car park was busy, then the fact that driving around looking for a space is not parking, and ANPR scameras only record time on site, not time parked, then it should be included.

Use all the points available to you, where relevant, from the third post of the NEWBIES.

Non-PoFA compliant NTK
Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures
Time on site is not parking time
Anything else relevant

which is the 'picture thread' please?

Umkomaas

Etccarmageddon said:

Fruitcake said:

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and the keeper's MP. Has this been done yet, especially if the keeper and their family are regular Morrison's shoppers. Proof of patronage/Morrison's More card should be attached.

Have you compared the NTK with the examples in the Picture thread? I believe it was recently discovered that ECP NTKs are not PoFA compliant, so this should be your point 1.

I don't think you will get for using the lack of grace periods point for an alleged 26 minute overstay, but if the car park was busy, then the fact that driving around looking for a space is not parking, and ANPR scameras only record time on site, not time parked, then it should be included.

Use all the points available to you, where relevant, from the third post of the NEWBIES.

Non-PoFA compliant NTK
Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures
Time on site is not parking time
Anything else relevant

which is the 'picture thread' please?

Currently residing on page 3 of the forum. It's headed: 

A thread of Pictures of 2023 parking firm NTKs

Etccarmageddon

Brilliant thank you and thank you too Fruitcake

This points me to how the NPK has this issue on mine too!   "Paragraph 9 of POFA 2012. In their PCN the operator has not brought a satisfactory warning to the keeper, as the notice does not advise the keeper that if they were not the driver to pass the notice onto the driver. "

The "pass the notice to the driver" text is missing on mine too so will be added to my popla appeal

SamP92

Okay, so I’ve used the link recommended by JerryJ64 - will post an update when I received one 

SamP92

Still received no update from Morrisons

Just conscious, as I have until 21/12 until the PCN will increase. How long should I wait before starting a POPLA appeal?