Quick question on bank statements

Coupon-mad

Yep, if they offered the £20 set in the BPA CoP then POPLA will find in their favour.  The new planned statutory CoP says that all PCNs involving keying errors must be cancelled (no £20 offer allowed) because the burden of inputting a VRM should not fall upon the consumer, especially when the keypad or system could be a cause of faults/errors.

Ask your MP to lobby the MHCLG for the new Code of Practice to hurry up and be reintroduced, as people are being scammed at the moment due to a continuing self-serving industry CoP being the only 'rules'.  And they wrote them.

mrflib

I have emailed my MP about this, but also generally about these con artists. We have a new one, hopefully he is keen.

So appeal popla with text from the sticky, plus a video of the keypad not working (it doesn't, same machine this guy used https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/i-went-to-country-park-and-paid-2-50-why-are-the-debt-co-311959/), then it will be small claims court?

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't bother with POPLA.  As I already said: "POPLA will find in their favour."

Let it go to court then be ready to use your evidence at WS stage.  But if DCB Legal file the claim it will be discontinued next year anyway.  Better to follow that route than POPLA.

mrflib

I have read and re-read so many pages on this forum that acronyms are buzzing around my head . For my sanity, I wanted to check I am understanding the process:

1. Try to get landowner to cancel the ticket (attempted & ongoing)
2. Appeal to Euro Car Parks with evidence (attempted)
3. Euro Car Parks now demanding a reduced £20 admin fee for a "Major keying error".
4. POPLA stage (Ignore this stage in this case)
5. Expect debt recovery letters in various shades (ignore these completely, but save them)
6. Wait for a Letter Before Action or Claim, then follow the guide in the Pre-Action Stage to email the solicitor. (post 2 newbies thread). I'm curious if this template remains unchanged for defending the £20 admin fee, vs a full parking charge.
   
7. If a claim follows, the follow the advice here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1
8. Follow the claim form guidance here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016/p1

There is so much help available here, so thank you to all who put their time in to it. I know there's no one-size-fits-all approach, but the threads are as close to that as you can get.

As an aside, I have forwarded your specific recommendations to my MP. I will update when I get any kind of response.

Coupon-mad

But you won't be defending against a £20 admin fee. That will be long gone.

The threatograms will be for £170.

If you are still in the window to pay £20 decide now whether to settle it or defend the whole thing.

LoneStarState

Hold fire.......

The PCN is non POFA due to the site being not relevant land as prior post by LDast highlights.  Surely POPLA is worth it on those grounds if the driver hasn't been identified?  

The appeal would just need to cut through any smoke ECP may blow about the keying error........which doesn't matter, keeper can't be held liable regardless due to non-relevant land.

And the prior POPLA case can be used that was highlighted for the same car park from 2018 if you have the POPLA reference for that decision.

mrflib

LoneStarState said:

Hold fire.......

The PCN is non POFA due to the site being not relevant land as prior post by LDast highlights.  Surely POPLA is worth it on those grounds if the driver hasn't been identified?  

The appeal would just need to cut through any smoke ECP may blow about the keying error........which doesn't matter, keeper can't be held liable regardless due to non-relevant land.

And the prior POPLA case can be used that was highlighted for the same car park from 2018 if you have the POPLA reference for that decision.

Thanks for this. I will be appealing through POPLA, and I have the name of the assessor and rough date, as well as the verbatim decision she gave. I do not have the reference for the decision.

February 2018

Decision Successful
Assessor Name: Linda McMillan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator's case is that no pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision
In this case, the motorist's argument is that the land is not relevant land according to Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, and therefore PoFA 2012 does not apply. Specifically he states that the car park is a parking place provided or controlled by a traffic authority which includes county councils. According to the information provided by the operator and the appellant, Euro Car Parks operate this car park on behalf of Kent County Council. From this information, the land does look like it is council owned. As such, I would expect the operator to have responded to the appellant's point directly to explain why it is relevant land. From what I can see, it appears that the operator has not responded directly to this point. Furthermore, POPLA has not been provided with sufficient evidence to show that this is indeed relevant land. As the land appears to be council owned then I am not satisfied that the requirements of PoFA 2012 have been met. Therefore, the keeper cannot be held responsible. As such from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Many thanks to Edna Basher and the other contributors to the original thread.

mrflib

ECP withdrew their appeal - I assume that means that they will not contest any further and the ticket it cancelled?

Would it be useful to put my full appeal in here so it can be referenced in the future?

Coupon-mad

Yes and please also add a reply in POPLA DECISIONS with a link to this thread and stating which PPC you beat.

You won! 

mrflib

This is by no means perfect, but if anyone is targeted by ECP at Lullingstone, I hope this will help. ECP rejected my appeal showing proof of payment prior to the POPLA appeal. ECP withdrew the appeal.

I wish I could bill these parasites for my time wasted on this.

Appeal re POPLA Code 2412824074 vs ECP 

Vehicle Registration: XXXX XXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 4/9/24 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Euro Car Parks – was submitted and acknowledged but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 8/10/24.

I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

• This PCN is non-POFA due to the site not being relevant land. The land and car park is owned by Kent County Council.

• POPLA have previously ruled against ECP for issuing tickets on this land against keepers of vehicles. 

• Parking was paid for, as evidenced by bank statement, transaction screenshot and ECP’s own system shows it.

PoFA 2012

Lullingstone Country Park is a designated country park, which means it is managed by a local authority, in this case, Kent County Council. As such, it is considered land under statutory control because it is maintained by a public authority under the framework set out by the Countryside Act 1968 and other relevant conservation and planning laws. The local authority would have statutory obligations for its upkeep, conservation, and management, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Therefore, Lullingstone Country Park would be considered land under statutory control in the sense that it is a country park managed by a public authority under statutory obligations, including those set out in the Countryside Act 1968.  If the car park is under statutory control, the PPC cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper for any PCNs. They can only pursue the driver, in this case the driver has not been identified.

Any PCNs issued by the PPC can only be enforced using contractual law against the driver (if known) rather than relying on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

I reference a previous POPLA decision for February 2018 where POPLA Assessor LINDA MCMILLAN found that the same operator, ECP, at the same car park, Lullingstone Country Park, could not prove that the requirements of PoFA 2012 were met. Nor can they in this instance.

Please see her decision in full below:

_______________________________________________

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Linda McMillan

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator's case is that no pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

In this case, the motorist's argument is that the land is not relevant land according to Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, and therefore PoFA 2012 does not apply. Specifically he states that the car park is a parking place provided or controlled by a traffic authority which includes county councils. According to the information provided by the operator and the appellant, Euro Car Parks operate this car park on behalf of Kent County Council. 

From this information, the land does look like it is council owned. As such, I would expect the operator to have responded to the appellant's point directly to explain why it is relevant land. From what I can see, it appears that the operator has not responded directly to this point. Furthermore, POPLA has not been provided with sufficient evidence to show that this is indeed relevant land. As the land appears to be council owned then I am not satisfied that the requirements of PoFA 2012 have been met. Therefore, the keeper cannot be held responsible. As such from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

_______________________________________________

As Euro Car Parks already knows, the car park at Country Park is owned and provided by Kent County Council, a "traffic authority" as defined under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of POFA; this car park is therefore not "relevant land" under POFA. I am very concerned that ECP is claiming that it has the right under POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, even though it should have been obvious to ECP that no such right exists.

Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “traffic authority” as meaning each of the following:

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Welsh Ministers;

(c) Transport for London;

(d) the Common Council of the City of London;

(e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;

(f) a parish or community council;

(g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

According to this definition, Kent County Council is therefore a "traffic authority".

Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “parking place” as having the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 i.e. a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any class, may wait.

Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA states that in this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

The parking places at Lullingstone Country Park, having been provided by Kent County Council (a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4) are therefore not relevant land by virtue of Paragraph 3 (1) (b) of Schedule 4.

Proof of land ownership by Kent County Council - not relevant land

Kent County Council’s own website shows that they own the park: 

https://www.kent.gov.uk/leisure-and-community/kent-country-parks/find-a-kent-country-park

CSV of all land owned by the council: 

https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/file/0012/151500/Kent-County-Council-owned-land-and-buildings.csv

See refs 78170100 & 78170200

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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP 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

Malfunctioning machines & payment made

Regardless of whether PoFA 2012 requirements are met, it is not the fault of anyone except ECP if their parking machines are not accepting input, or their screens are blanked or not clear. As agreed in this article, the machines at Lullingstone are not to be relied upon:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/i-went-to-country-park-and-paid-2-50-why-are-the-debt-co-311959/

The driver does not wish to return to the car park to video the machines due to risk of more frivilous parking tickets. It is hoped the article above and the drivers' corroborating statement that they are hard to use due to lack of maintenance will be enough to have ECP investigate them.

Any reasonable person will look at the evidence of this appeal, including that evidence provided by ECP showing payment was made, and see that a ticket was purchased for the duration and not exceeded. Once the new statutory Code of Practice comes in to place, frivolous tickets such as these will become illegal. Until that date, ECP are just trying it on.

It is frustrating that ECP know that payment was made, have proved above that payment was made, yet still wish to pursue profit from their automated penalty system.

END