ECP PCN appeal to POPLA unsuccessful. Debt Recovery Plus letter. Now what?!

sloth1986

In brief, I overstayed, appealed and lost. Now DRP are requesting £170, I have no option to pay the lower original or 'early payment discount' of the PCN to ECP. 

This DRP letter is my first correspondence since the appeal was rejected 19th Dec, I have recieved nothing from ECP since then.

What are my options now? I can't really afford the £170, and certainly don't want to risk any increase.

Brief summary:

While parked my wife who has MS and a Blue Badge (which is obviously not usable in a ECP location) had seizures - possibly MS related, possibly not, we are still awaiting consultant appointments etc and ongoing investigations. This meant we were late back to the car park. I offered to provide further evidence of my wife's health conditions at the appeal stage as I was not sure what to show (full medical history seemed excessive!).

Popla do not dispute this, and say that the PCN was issued correctly, it is up to ECP to consider mitigating circumstances. ECP have clearly decided they do not care, and are pursuing debt recovery options. I have not contacted the land owner, a hotel/restaurant.

Many thanks.

The longer version:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

(removed, as I dont know if I should or not!)

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the P&D permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • Their wife had a medical emergency whilst their vehicle was parked in the car park. • They say there was no way for them to predict their wife was going to have a seizure whilst they were out and they returned to their vehicle as soon as possible. • They had attempted to pay retrospectively for the extra 1 hour and 12 minutes but this was not an option on the machine. • They say they realise there is a pay by phone option but they are not registered with this service and did not take a picture of the signage for contact details in case this happened. • They say that on Citizens Advices website that they should appeal if they could not get back to their car because they are disabled. • They say that under the Equality Act 2010 they must be treated with an understanding and cannot be discriminated against, so the PCN should be cancelled. • They say they have provided their blue badge but not evidence of the most recent medical event as they are not sure what would be required but say they are happy to provide further evidence of their medical conditions if it is needed. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments in regards to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.4 and how the time taken to return to their vehicle and leave was a reasonable period. However, these were not raised when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I do not consider these new grounds of appeal as part of my decision. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • Two images showing the front and back of a blue badge. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

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. I appreciate that the appellant says their wife had a medical emergency whilst their vehicle was parked in the car park and they say they could not have predicted their wife was going to have a seizure. I understand that their wife would have been their priority and that they did not intend on breaching the terms and conditions of parking. When looking at appeals, POPLA can only consider if the PCN has been issued correctly in line with the terms and conditions of the site in question. POPLA cannot allow an appeal based on mitigating circumstances. POPLA are able to ask a parking operator to consider cancelling a charge, if POPLA do not consider it has reviewed the circumstances. After reviewing the initial appeal, I can see the same circumstances were presented to the parking operator, and no new evidence has been provided. As the parking operator has already made a judgement based on this information, and decided to continue with pursuing the charge, I must continue with the assessment. I note that the appellant says that they had attempted to pay retrospectively for the extra 1 hour and 12 minutes but this was not an option on the machine. Most payment machines require payment to be made on arrival and are not always set up for payments being made retrospectively. The operator has provided images showing signs located throughout the site which confirms the tariffs applicable to pay, how payment can be made using machine or by phone and how the terms and conditions apply at all times. There is no information on the signs on site that explain a payment cannot be made before the vehicle leaves the car park. The appellant still could have made a payment and it would have covered their additional time on site. The operator has provided a system print out showing that the appellant had made a payment for 2 hours of parking but the appellant exceeded this by 1 hour and 12 minutes. Therefore, as the appellants P&D permit purchased did not cover the time of parking, they breached the terms and conditions and they became liable for the issuance of a PCN. I acknowledge that the appellant says that they realise there is a pay by phone option but they are not registered with this service and did not take a picture of the signage for contact details in case this happened. Before leaving the car park, the appellant could have attempted to pay for parking using one of the pay by phone options. Although the appellant is not registered, they could have called the number on the signs to make a payment for their additional time parked on site. Alternatively, the appellant could have called the operator using the number listed on the signs, to seek advice or assistance on what to do. I appreciate that the appellant says that on Citizens Advices website that they should appeal if they could not get back to their car because they are disabled. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. Any comments or assurances made by a third party do not overrule the parking restrictions in place on a car park that is governed by terms and conditions. Citizens Advice Bureau are unable to advise that a PCN should not be issued to motorists delayed getting back to their car because they are disabled. The terms and conditions of the site are applicable to all motorists parking on site, including disabled badge holders. Any queries regarding the information that had been provided by Citizens Advice Bureau will need to be take up with them directly. I understand that the appellant says that under the Equality Act 2010 they must be treated with an understanding and cannot be discriminated against, so the PCN should be cancelled. In any instance where a motorist does not comply with the terms and conditions for the site, a PCN would be issued. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellants wife had a seizure. Discrimination is treating somebody differently because of a protected characteristic, such as a disability. Therefore, I am satisfied that there has been no level of discrimination, as the PCN has been issued due to the P&D permit purchased did not cover the time the appellant parked and site and not due to their wife having a seizure. I can see that the appellant says they have provided their blue badge but not evidence of the most recent medical event as they are not sure what would be required but say they are happy to provide further evidence of their medical conditions if it is needed. When submitting an appeal to POPLA, you ticked a box that said you may need to submit evidence to support your appeal and were given the option to upload evidence. If the appellant felt it relevant for POPLA to see the evidence, it should have been uploaded at that stage. As the appellant did not submit this as evidence at the point of appeal, we are now unable to allow them to supply their evidence to us at this stage of the appeal. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant was observed parked on site for longer that the time they had paid to park for 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.

sloth1986

Here is the full text of details submitted to Popla, personal details removed:

I have included for reference below, the information which I originally entered into Euro Cark Parks online appeal service.

In addition to the below I would like to state that the following, what I believe to be, key points:

1.

My wife, xxxxxxxxxxx, had a medical emergency while the car was parked.

I have included a copy of her blue badge to provide eveidence of her disability. I have not included further evidence of this most recent medical event as I'm not sure what exactly would be required (we have numerous hospital letters etc, some of which are quite personal, so I will only include them if needed), of course if you require further evidence of her medical condition or the state of this most recent multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse, I am happy to provide it.

2.

There was no way to predict that my wife would have seizures while we were out, and I returned to the car as soon as possible, once a friend arrived to stay with my wife and other young children.

On my return to the car park I visited the machine to attempt to retrospectively pay for the extra 1 hr 12 mins, but this was not an option.

I realise there is a 'pay by phone' option at this site, however I am not registered with the service, and did not take a photo of the car park signage for contact details in case this happened - I don't think anyone could be reasonably expected to!

3.

Citizens Advice Bureaux state on there website:

"You should appeal your ticket if you couldn’t get back to your car because:

    it’s difficult for you to walk because you’re disabled

    you’re pregnant

    you have a very young baby

The Equality Act 2010 means you must be treated with understanding and can’t be discriminated against, so the ticket should be cancelled."

 

Information originally provided to Euro Car Park online appeal:-

 

"Hi, I hope you will see this charge is unfair due to reasons outside of my control.

Firstly, I paid for a length of time I fully expected to return by. There was no 'ticket stub' or similar with contact details to tear off and take with me, in case I needed to call you and extend my stay; so I had no way while away from the car park to extend my time once it had over-run.

There was also no way for me to pay at the machine retrospectively for the extra 1 hour 12 mins when I did return to the car park.

Secondly, I believe my reason for lateness was justifiable.

I was transporting my wife, who is in possesion of a Blue Badge (assessed by the County Council as necessary, due to mobility difficulties), I realise there is no provision for BB discount at the private car park, I merely mention it here to add weight to my proof of reasonableness for being late.

On this particular day/time, we were delayed on our return as while out she had attacks of multiple sclerosis relapse related, epileptic-like seizures, which we absolutely could not have predicted. I stayed with my wife in Castle Park until a friend arrived and was able to stay with her, while I ran back to the car with my 8 year old daughter to remove it from the car park.

There was no reasonable way for me to have dealt with this unexpected medical emergency, and extend the parking time/move the car sooner, so I am appealing on those grounds. Thank you."

patient_dream

POPLA is no longer a service the public can trust and they do make poor decisions. More on the side of the parking company.   It's a BPA set up

Government has promised an independent appeals (when they get their finger out), and POPLA will be put out the grass where they belong

IGNORE ALL LETTERS FROM DEBT COLLECTORS. they are only money scammers and 100% POWERLESS

If you hear from a legal, come back heree

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it is never too late to do so.

Service providers (I hate calling unregulated private parking companies that) are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities that are classed as protected characteristics.

Failing to anticipate the needs of a motorist (including passengers) even if they weren't aware of a disability is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, and a criminal offence.

Continuing to pursue a motorist once they have been made aware of an occupant's disability is a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence.

All of the above should be included in your complaints, including a statement to the landowner that they are jointly liable for the actions of their agents, and therefore jointly culpable for any breach of the above Act, and therefore jointly liable for criminal charges to be brought against them.
Be (very) firm, factual, and polite, and ask the landowner to instruct their parking agent to cancel the charge.

Coupon-mad

Post 4 of the NEWBIES thread tells you to ignore DRPlus.

Post 1 of the NEWBIES thread tells you that PLAN A is a landowner complaint.

In your case = illegal failure by their agents, ECP, to make a 'reasonable adjustment' for a disabled patron under their duty in the Equality Act 2010 (the EA).

Not sure why you tried POPLA; were you misled into thinking it is independent?  Misled into thinking they can consider the EA (illegally and shockingly, they don't).  The appeal might have been winnable had you come here first and not admitted to driving.

I'll alert a solicitor poster, @troublemaker22 who is keen to assist with complaints where the EA was not adhered to and/or where POPLA got it wrong.  He may be able to help you.

DO NOT PAY IT.

DO NOT CONTACT DR PLUS.

fisherjim

"While parked my wife who has MS and a Blue Badge (which is obviously not usable in a ECP location)"

Well that is almost correct but not quite the BPA COP section 16 covers this:

16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to
the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove
barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely
to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance
or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It
also could include lowered payment machines and other ways
to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone.
You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled
people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.
16.3 Operators of off-street car parks do not have to
recognise the Blue Badge scheme. But many choose to
do so to meet their obligations under the Equality Act.
Although a Blue Badge is not issued to all disabled people
it is issued to those with mobility problems. So it is a
good way for parking operators to identify people who
need special parking provision.

And the ECP website clearly says:

Euro Car Parks a member of the British Parking Associations Approved Operators Scheme (AOS) and we strictly adhere to the Code of Practice for Parking Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks.

troublemaker22

@sloth1986, I've sent you a message

sloth1986

Thanks to all who've replied. And special thanks to @troublemaker22 for the kind offer in your message, I shall email you shortly.

Thanks again!