ECP DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Harmonyguru

Hi everyone,

Me again. After a long wait, I received a reply from POPLA and no surprise here, my appeal was unsuccessful. Before is their response below:

In their original appeal to the parking operator, the appellant has confirmed to being the driver on the date of the parking event and therefore, I will be considering their liability for the parking charge. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that motorists must pay for the full length of their parking, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. The signs also state a list of tariffs, including £3.00 for up to one hour’s parking and £6.50 for up to eight hours parking. Having considered the terms of the site, a payment of £6.50 was required to cover the appellant’s full duration of stay. The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log showing that the payment made only covered a one-hour period. As there is an unpaid period of three hours and 48 minutes, the PCN has been issued. I acknowledge the appellant has raised that the parking operator’s system incorrectly calculated the amount due. As part of their document, the appellant includes that there is no input required from the driver other than to enter their VRM and no changes or variations to the sum demanded are possible. The appellant goes on to say that the tariff board is for information only and the driver is obliged to pay the sum calculated by the check-out system and is not free to calculate their own parking period. In their response to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on this ground in further detail, stating that the parking operator has not adequately addressed the system failures as confirmation of their receipt can be seen and there is a discrepancy between the payment information and the ANPR timings. The appellant also asks why the entry and exit times are completely different to the entry and exit times on the pay terminal at 22:38, and there was no option for the driver to alter this time manually. I have considered the appellant’s receipt and whilst I do not dispute a payment was made, the fee paid did not cover the full duration of stay. As such, this evidence does not support that the appellant correctly complied with the terms and conditions. The site operates ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and if an insufficient payment is located for the vehicle registration, a parking breach is triggered. The parking operator’s data log also shows me that other motorists were able to successfully pay for parking via various tariffs around the time the appellant was on the site. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am unable to determine if there were any faults with the payment systems on the date of the parking event. The payment systems do not tend to be linked to the ANPR cameras and will often show the lowest tariff available when a vehicle registration number is entered. When making a payment it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they select the relevant tariff to cover the time they have been on the site. I note the appellant has challenged the signage in detail as part of their appeal and the PCN fee is not prominently displayed, as per the requirements of section 18 of the BPA code of practice and the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). As part of their appeal, the appellant says that the case of Beavis v ParkingEye is dissimilar to this situation and refers to a previous POPLA appeal to support their case. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.1 of the code of practice, formerly section 18, states signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, showing that motorists must pay for the full duration of their parking time and the PCN fee is prominently displayed on the signage. I can also see that a site map has been provided that shows multiple signs are displayed across the car park, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, which makes them easy to read and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PCN charge can be read. Whilst I note the appellant has raised the case of Beavis v ParkingEye, POPLA is satisfied that this court case applies to all private car parks, as it simply states that consequences of not complying with the terms and conditions and the amount of the charge has to be clear on the signage. In this case, I am satisfied it is clear that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN of £100. POPLA only considers appeals on a case by case basis. Whilst I note the appellant has referred to a previous assessment, this has no bearing on the events of the date of the parking event. As such, I do not need to consider this previous case as part of my assessment. I have considered the appellant’s photographs of the signage and whilst I note they do not believe the signage is clear, I am satisfied that the parking operator has provided sufficient evidence to show that the signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. Ultimately, the appellant has paid for their parking and therefore, I am satisfied that they were in a position to understand the parking terms and what they needed to do to pay for parking. As the appellant has questioned the issue of landowner authority as part of their appeal, I need to ensure that the parking operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. Section 7.1 of the Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. The parking operator has provided a copy of the agreement, outlining the name of the site and is signed and dated by the landowner and the parking operator. It is clear that this contract displays the definition of the land in question and the statement provided by the parking operator. In particular, I would like to highlight to the appellant that clause 5 under the section “Authorisation Instructions” stipulates that “The services to be provided by the parties will be fully detailed in the agreement running from 10/07/2017, 5- year automatic renewal…”, which indicates to me that the operator had the relevant authorisation to issue parking charges on the date of contravention. If the landowner no longer wished for the operator to manage the site, then an end date of would likely had been stated within the documentation. As such, I am satisfied that the contract meets the requirements of the code of practice. I note the appellant has raised that there is no evidence of the period parked and the ANPR system has failed to comply with the requirements of the BPA code of practice. Section 21.5A of the code of practice states that at least one of the images captured includes a clear record of the vehicle’s VRM to which the parking charge is deemed to apply. This section goes on to say that images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the time-stamp. The burden of proof begins with the parking operator to show it issued the PCN correctly and if it does that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to show that the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. In the absence of such evidence , I am satisfied the evidence provided by the parking operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. Should the appellant wish to raise this issue further, they have the option to contact the British Parking Association directly. This information will be found on the BPA website. I acknowledge the appellant says that the parking operator has not complied with UK GDPR. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, it has no bearing on my assessment. If the appellant believes that GDPR rules have been breached and personal information has been breached, they would have to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) directly to seek further advice. I can see that the appellant has mentioned in their brief outline of the appeal that the Notice to Keeper does not specify the relevant land however, they have not explained this further as part of their written document. As such, I am unable to understand how this prevented them from complying with the parking terms. Even if such information was provided, there is no guarantee this would not invalidate the issue of the PCN. I have considered the appellant’s detailed documentation, as well as the parking operator’s rejection letter, and whilst I appreciate this information, it has no bearing on my decision. POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

In summary, because "in the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am unable to determine if there were any faults with the payment systems on the date of the parking event" i.e. there isn't indisputable evidence that their machines had a !!!!!! up so it's easier for them to cover their backs by burying their head in the sand'.

I received this over 10 days ago and no word or news ECP yet...

Thank you for everyone's input and advice so far, I'm sorry we didn't get the result we were hoping for this time.

Le_Kirk

You might like to break up that wall of text with some paragraphs please, no one will read it in that state - I know that's how it comes from POPLA

LDast

So what. All that shows is that the POPLA assessor is intellectually malnourished. Ignore it. You don’t pay the vermin just because a POPLA assessor with poo for brains decides that the PCN was issued correctly.

You now wait and see if/when they issue a Letter of Claim (LoC). Ignore all the useless debt collector letters.

All the advice on how to proceed from here is in the Newbies/FAQ thread.

h2g2

For the benefit of others I've broken the POPLA response into paragraphs (using my own judgement - YMMV) below:

A couple of highlights: paragraph 20 the assessor writes "the appellant has not provided any evidence to show that the cameras are not reliable in this specific case" while in paragraph 5 they write: "confirmation of their receipt can be seen and there is a discrepancy between the payment information and the ANPR timings". Surely some indication that something is miscalibrated. Either the ANPR cameras are out or the payment terminal is, and while it is possible the payment terminal is out surely this is evidence that the cameras may not have reliable timestamps.

Also, as someone dealing with a residential car park paragraph 12 appears to be pure insanity: "POPLA is satisfied that this court case applies to all private car parks, as it simply states that consequences of not complying with the terms and conditions and the amount of the charge has to be clear on the signage".

1. In their original appeal to the parking operator, the appellant has confirmed to being the driver on the date of the parking event and therefore, I will be considering their liability for the parking charge. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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.

2. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that motorists must pay for the full length of their parking, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. The signs also state a list of tariffs, including £3.00 for up to one hour’s parking and £6.50 for up to eight hours parking.

3. Having considered the terms of the site, a payment of £6.50 was required to cover the appellant’s full duration of stay. The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log showing that the payment made only covered a one-hour period. As there is an unpaid period of three hours and 48 minutes, the PCN has been issued.

4. I acknowledge the appellant has raised that the parking operator’s system incorrectly calculated the amount due. As part of their document, the appellant includes that there is no input required from the driver other than to enter their VRM and no changes or variations to the sum demanded are possible. The appellant goes on to say that the tariff board is for information only and the driver is obliged to pay the sum calculated by the check-out system and is not free to calculate their own parking period.

5. In their response to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on this ground in further detail, stating that the parking operator has not adequately addressed the system failures as confirmation of their receipt can be seen and there is a discrepancy between the payment information and the ANPR timings. The appellant also asks why the entry and exit times are completely different to the entry and exit times on the pay terminal at 22:38, and there was no option for the driver to alter this time manually.

6. I have considered the appellant’s receipt and whilst I do not dispute a payment was made, the fee paid did not cover the full duration of stay. As such, this evidence does not support that the appellant correctly complied with the terms and conditions. The site operates ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and if an insufficient payment is located for the vehicle registration, a parking breach is triggered.

7. The parking operator’s data log also shows me that other motorists were able to successfully pay for parking via various tariffs around the time the appellant was on the site. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am unable to determine if there were any faults with the payment systems on the date of the parking event. The payment systems do not tend to be linked to the ANPR cameras and will often show the lowest tariff available when a vehicle registration number is entered. When making a payment it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they select the relevant tariff to cover the time they have been on the site.

8. I note the appellant has challenged the signage in detail as part of their appeal and the PCN fee is not prominently displayed, as per the requirements of section 18 of the BPA code of practice and the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).

9. As part of their appeal, the appellant says that the case of Beavis v ParkingEye is dissimilar to this situation and refers to a previous POPLA appeal to support their case.

10. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.1 of the code of practice, formerly section 18, states signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

11. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, showing that motorists must pay for the full duration of their parking time and the PCN fee is prominently displayed on the signage. I can also see that a site map has been provided that shows multiple signs are displayed across the car park, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, which makes them easy to read and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PCN charge can be read.

12. Whilst I note the appellant has raised the case of Beavis v ParkingEye, POPLA is satisfied that this court case applies to all private car parks, as it simply states that consequences of not complying with the terms and conditions and the amount of the charge has to be clear on the signage. In this case, I am satisfied it is clear that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN of £100.

13. POPLA only considers appeals on a case by case basis. Whilst I note the appellant has referred to a previous assessment, this has no bearing on the events of the date of the parking event. As such, I do not need to consider this previous case as part of my assessment.

14. I have considered the appellant’s photographs of the signage and whilst I note they do not believe the signage is clear, I am satisfied that the parking operator has provided sufficient evidence to show that the signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. Ultimately, the appellant has paid for their parking and therefore, I am satisfied that they were in a position to understand the parking terms and what they needed to do to pay for parking.

15. As the appellant has questioned the issue of landowner authority as part of their appeal, I need to ensure that the parking operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. Section 7.1 of the Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract.

16. The parking operator has provided a copy of the agreement, outlining the name of the site and is signed and dated by the landowner and the parking operator. It is clear that this contract displays the definition of the land in question and the statement provided by the parking operator.

17. In particular, I would like to highlight to the appellant that clause 5 under the section “Authorisation Instructions” stipulates that “The services to be provided by the parties will be fully detailed in the agreement running from 10/07/2017, 5- year automatic renewal…”, which indicates to me that the operator had the relevant authorisation to issue parking charges on the date of contravention. If the landowner no longer wished for the operator to manage the site, then an end date of would likely had been stated within the documentation. As such, I am satisfied that the contract meets the requirements of the code of practice.

18. I note the appellant has raised that there is no evidence of the period parked and the ANPR system has failed to comply with the requirements of the BPA code of practice. Section 21.5A of the code of practice states that at least one of the images captured includes a clear record of the vehicle’s VRM to which the parking charge is deemed to apply. This section goes on to say that images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the time-stamp.

19. The burden of proof begins with the parking operator to show it issued the PCN correctly and if it does that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working.

20. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to show that the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. In the absence of such evidence , I am satisfied the evidence provided by the parking operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable.

21. Should the appellant wish to raise this issue further, they have the option to contact the British Parking Association directly. This information will be found on the BPA website.

22. I acknowledge the appellant says that the parking operator has not complied with UK GDPR. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

23. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, it has no bearing on my assessment. If the appellant believes that GDPR rules have been breached and personal information has been breached, they would have to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) directly to seek further advice.

24. I can see that the appellant has mentioned in their brief outline of the appeal that the Notice to Keeper does not specify the relevant land however, they have not explained this further as part of their written document. As such, I am unable to understand how this prevented them from complying with the parking terms.

25. Even if such information was provided, there is no guarantee this would not invalidate the issue of the PCN. I have considered the appellant’s detailed documentation, as well as the parking operator’s rejection letter, and whilst I appreciate this information, it has no bearing on my decision. POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

26. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

LDast

Thank you for editing the POPLA response but it is not really necessary. We already know that POPLA assessors can be wrong and no matter how obvious the evidence is to the contrary, they may agree but will never reverse their decision.

It’s really not worth wasting any effort on the POPLA decision. Time no to simply wait and see if/when they decide to try their luck in front of a judge who will not be as ignorant or stupid as a POPLA assessor. County court is the ultimate dispute resolution service.

If this PPC are as masochistic as they appear to be, they’ll love the spanking they’d get in court if they are stupid enough to go so far.

Grizebeck

that isnt really relevant

Harmonyguru

Le_Kirk said:

You might like to break up that wall of text with some paragraphs please, no one will read it in that state - I know that's how it comes from POPLA

Have to thank @h2g2 for kindly taking the initiative here.

Harmonyguru

Hi everyone, just wondering if there is a typical time to expect to hear from the parking operator after a decision from POPLA is made?

Coupon-mad

They have 6 years to sue.  That's the only real dispute resolution you get.

Harmonyguru

LDast said:

So what. All that shows is that the POPLA assessor is intellectually malnourished. Ignore it. You don’t pay the vermin just because a POPLA assessor with poo for brains decides that the PCN was issued correctly.

You now wait and see if/when they issue a Letter of Claim (LoC). Ignore all the useless debt collector letters.

All the advice on how to proceed from here is in the Newbies/FAQ thread.

I've had what I think is just a debt collector letter dates 16th September. It's from DEBT RECOVERY PLUS. I assume this is not a LoC yet and so I don't need to take any action? Nowhere on the letter does it specify it is one.