Parking Charge Notice - 12 Minutes - Euro Parking Services - IPC - Appeal Rejected

craigbainton

Hi all,

Firstly, I have read the newbies thread - and previously won a case against Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics in 2021 thanks to the help on this forum. (They withdrew the day before the court hearing).

I have new issue now!

I received a Parking Charge Notice from Euro Parking Services, an IPC Accredited Operator. Very dark images are included showing the car arriving and leaving. It was night-time and raining at the time.

The PCN is a £60 charge for a 12 minute stay! The area is not a car park, rather a street outside some shops. Let us presume one stopped there to pick up their girlfriend (didn't leave the car) rather than waiting on the main road as there are multiple bus stops there. This seems like the safest and logical approach.

One didn't even realise this area had been turned into a charge-for-parking area. (night-time & raining)

LOCATION: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tmfETtUniSPKBrqS8

The newbies thread said to complain to the land owner, but as it's just a street I don't think there is one.

I know it also says there is no point appealing but I thought I'd give it a try and sent this:

THE APPEAL:

"Re PCN number: 1011344

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

Furthermore, the notice states an alleged duration of stay of 12 minutes! This is not a length of time of which one would park, and is surely the time taken to enter, find a space, find a sign, read the terms and decide whether to accept the terms, and leave."

THEIR RESPONSE:

Site: 58-76 Alcester Road
Issue date: 07/02/2024

We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received on 10/02/2024 in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

We have reviewed your appeal and in doing so, we took into account the representations that you made in support of your appeal as well as evidence which was submitted. We reached the decision that in this instance, the Parking Charge was issued correctly for the following reason(s).

As per the car park's terms and conditions, all vehicles must pay to park in this area. Unfortunately when the Parking Charge was issued a payment was not made for your vehicle. Your vehicle was left unattended on Private Property, therefore giving you no authorisation to park. There are sufficient signs in the car park warning motorist that should they park their vehicle without paying, it will result in a Parking Charge being issued to the vehicle.

Note, signs stating the terms and conditions of the car park are prominently displayed in and around the site and are obvious to any person who enters the site. It is incumbent upon motorists to read them. If they choose to ignore them then they submit to the terms nonetheless.

We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and that sufficient attention was brought to the driver with regards to the terms and Conditions enforced. In light of the aforementioned, your appeal (representations) is rejected. We will not accept any further appeals. We have now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount. Please now make payment of £60.00. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter. However, if you choose this option your Parking Charge will automatically increase to £100. Please visit www.theias.org for full details. Payment can be made using a debit or credit card by calling the automated payment line on 0845 121 0065 or online at www.europarkingservices.com. You may send a cheque or postal order made payable to Euro Parking Services Ltd. Please ensure you write your Parking Charge Notice number clearly on the reverse. Please do not send cash through the post. For our full Complaints Procedure please visit www.europarkingservices.com. Should you consider not making a payment, we must draw your attention to the landmark decision in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd- v -Mr Barry Beavis. Further details on the case can be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was seen as an important 'test case' due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the while of the United Kingdom. If a payment is not received by the above date we will commence court action to recover what you owe. This will include additional charges to include (but not limited to) legal and court costs. Should judgement be awarded in our favour, this may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department Euro Parking Services Ltd

NEXT STEPS?

I guess now I just have to wait for the LOC?
Surely this amount of time does not constitute parking?
Is it fair to say they haven't actually provided evidence of me leaving the vehicle (which I didn't)
How is it possible to read their signs T&C's in 12 minutes?

Thanks all,

Coupon-mad

Agreed.  You have a good case. Sit tight and come back if you get a solicitor's LBC.

troublemaker22

Maybe this is one of those unusual cases where an appeal to the kangaroo court IAS service is worthwhile.  If an IAS appeal is successful, the PCN must be cancelled and if it fails you are no worse off than if you'd sat tight and waited for the LBC because IAS decisions are binding on operators but not on motorists.

To enable us to consider whether this is a good candidate for an IAS appeal show us both sides of the PCN. Redact your name, address, vehicle number and PCN reference but leave all dates showing.

Also, your statement 'as it's just a street I don't think there is [an owner]' is certainly wrong.  If it's a public street it's owned by the local authority and excluded from the definition of 'relevant land' in POFA so a Euro Parking Services PCN can't be enforced against the keeper and if it's a private street its owned by a private landowner to whom you should complain as per Plan A.  We don't have streets that aren't owned by anyone.

craigbainton

Thanks @troublemaker22

I've had a bit more of a dig and come up with a company that potentially owns the site. 'Alcester Road Investments LTD', problem is the only contact details I can find is their registered address on the GOV.UK site which is actually the address of an accountancy firm

Anyway, here's the redacted PCN:

Coupon-mad

craigbainton said:

That's a newer version than they used in 2023. But they haven't improved the wording and it isn't POFA-compliant.

As seen last year from them, the timeline for keeper liability is ambiguous and wrong.

In fact they've put two different 28 day periods there and it looks like they reckon they can add debt recovery charges after 28 days, even though the POFA calculates it differently, as shown lower down.

troublemaker22

It's not only POFA non-compliant, it's also in breach of the IPC Code, which is the kind of thing IAS (despite its awful reputation) might allow an appeal on. 

More after a night’s sleep. 

troublemaker22

Well done on finding the landowner. The accountants are being used as a post box so it's reasonable to expect them to do their job and pass your letter to their client.   It may well be that waiting for a girl friend for 12 minutes is not the kind of use of their private street that the landowner wants to encourage or protect, but no harm in asking - provided you don't give away the identity of the driver as the landowner could pass the letter on to EPS.

When the rejection comes in from EPS, try the following appeal to IAS:

1.   I appeal as keeper.  The operator has candidly admitted in its purported parking charge notice to keeper ('NTK') that it does not know the name and address of the driver.  I have no obligation to identify the driver and I respectfully decline to do so.

2.    As there is no presumption in law that the keeper of a vehicle drove it on any particular day, the operator cannot pursue me as driver.

3.   Parliament has provided a statutory procedure to enable an operator who does not know the name and address of a driver to pursue the keeper instead.  That procedure is set out in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’).

 4.  In order to pursue a keeper under POFA, an operator must comply with the strict requirements for keeper liability set out in POFA. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient. 

5. In a case such as this, where the parking charge is initiated by a notice sent to the keeper (‘NTK’) without the prior delivery of a notice to the driver, the NTK must comply with all the requirements of POFA Paragraph 9 in order to be effective.

5.  POFA paragraph 9(2)(a) says that the NTK must specify 'the period of parking to which the notice relates' The operator's purported NTK does not specify the period of parking to which the NTK relates as a period has a start and an end and the operator's purported NTK specifies only a single point in time.  This failure alone renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

 6.  In addition, POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) says that the NTK must contain a warning that makes express reference to 'all the applicable conditions under [POFA]' being met. The operator's purported NTK does not make any reference to the applicable conditions under POFA. This failure alone renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

7.  Furthermore, as an accredited IPC operator, the operator must comply with the IPC's Code of Practice as well as POFA.

8.  Paragraph 16.1 of the IPC's Code of Practice says 'Where a Parking Charge is issued Notices must comply with the applicable requirements as set out in Schedule 3'.  Schedule 3 echoes the POFA requirement  for a period of parking to be specified in the NTK and refers to an example NTK in Appendix 5 where the following form of words is prescribed:

'Period of Parking:

From: (Date and Time of entry)

To: (Date and Time of Exit)

...

This charge relates to the period of parking specified above, the charge having been incurred for the reason stated and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the Site at the time of parking.'

9. The operator’s purported NTK lacks all the above information and therefore fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the IPC Code of Practice. This failure alone renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

10.  IAS arbitrators are required to apply the law and the Code strictly without regard to mistakes or extenuating factors.  So even if the operator's multiple failures to comply with POFA and the Code can be regarded as mistakes, the appeal must succeed.

One of the (few) good things about the IAS process is that you will have multiple opportunities to comment on the operator's responses, so you can expand on the above and/or comment on the operator's failure to address your points if need be.

Don't lose sight of IAS's reputation as a kangaroo court that is biased against the motorist.  Though other forum experts may disagree, I think it's worth appealing to IAS in cases like yours.  Anyway, IAS standard appeal decisions are binding on operators but not on motorists, so you have something to gain but nothing to lose by appealing to IAS under the standard appeal procedure.  Avoid the binding IAS non-standard appeal procedure like the plague.

craigbainton

@troublemaker22
EPIC. Thank you - I'll crack on with complaint to landowner & IAS appeal. Will report back when I have more info.

Coupon-mad

That's an IAS appeal example written by a solicitor with 100% win rate (I think?) at IAS.  

Umkomaas

For any non PoFA compliance appeal, I'm sure there'll be an Elliot v Loake response from the IAS. Let's see!

troublemaker22

Elliot v Loake has not cut any ice with IAS in my appeals - which have all been non POFA. I have wording and authorities to counter it if the PPC raises it