PCN at Euro car park Crewe

userno478

My car was parked in Euro car parks, Pedley St, Crewe on 19/10/24 from early in the morning to late at night.

The driver paid or thought they had done by card (no error message from the machine and it printed a receipt)

PCN dated 25/10/24, notice to keeper arrived by post, a few days post the titled date.

Driver still had the receipt, so appealed internally to Euro car parks, as the keeper, online on 5/11/24. 

Response arrived 28/11/24 by email: appeal rejected: Please note that the ticket provided with your appeal clearly states that this is a void transaction receipt, therefore the PCN was issued correctly and remains payable.

Option of POPLA appeal.

Internal appeal only based on the receipt from machine. Ok to add other points for POPLA appeal?

BPA code of practice - appears there is an updated version, The Private parking sector single Code of Practice  - came into effect on 1st October 2024. But I couldn't find this version used on the forum.
Britishcarparking.co.uk website advises:
from 1st October 2024

• All new sites must be compliant with the Code requirements relating to controlled land
• All aspects of the Code must be complied with except signage or other related clauses applicable to existing sites
• All reporting obligations in clause 17 must be complied with.

from 31 December 2026

•  All aspects of the Code must be complied with for all sites

I'm unsure which parts of version 9 should be used and which should use the new version.

My current appeal draft is based on the new version so I may need to rewrite.

I can attend site is a bit of a distance away but can attend if pictures needed.

I can add pictures of the letters, ticket, PCN.

Grateful for any comments.

userno478

I am responding as the keeper of the vehicle. The driver has not been identified by me. No assumptions can be made about the driver. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.

Parking charge notice (PCN) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

Not compliant with the Code clause 3.3/No contract entered into between operator and driver/keeper

Not compliant with the Code clause 6.2 note 2

Accuracy of ANPR equipment?

Adequacy of training requirements?

 

The PCN has been issued directly to keeper, so therefore Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9 must be followed. Schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2) states that for the NTK to be valid:

“The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—”

 

The issued Notice to Keeper (attached) does not state this, is therefore not POFA compliant and should be cancelled.

 

Euro Car Park’s response to initial appeal, dated 28/11/24 and with reference refers to “Signage at the site clearly details the terms and conditions that you must adhere to” and includes the picture below.

The notice in the picture states:

“Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue)”.

It also states:

“park only within marked bays”

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice version 9, section 19.11 about Surface markings – delineated parking bays states:

“Where relevant obligations require motorists to park within delineated parking bays, surface markings must be applied and maintained by you in such a manner as to be clearly visible to motorists in all lighting and weather conditions as might apply.

As well as considering the materials used for surface marking you should also consider the nature of lighting to be used – good practice guidance is available including the Society of Light and Lighting Code for Lighting published by the Chartered Institute of Building Services..”

However, no bays are marked as shown in the picture below.

It is impossible to comply with the relevant obligation in the terms and conditions directing to park only within marked bays, as there are no surface markings delineating parking bays. A valid parking contract was therefore not properly formed.

 

The driver has said that they attempted to pay for parking on the day in question and the payment machine did not display any error, and printed out a receipt. It seems the machine did not accept payment but the driver was not initially aware. The private parking sector single Code of Practice (version 1 - June 2024) [“the Code”] in clause 6.2 Pay-and-display, NOTE 2 states:

“a “payment failed” slip should be designed so that it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt”

In this case, the failed payment receipt has not been designed so that it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt. Combined with the reported lack of notification by the payment machine, the PCN is in breach of this requirement.

 

Clause 7 of the Code concerns camera images. 7.1 states:

“Parking operators must ensure that the equipment and systems used to capture photographic evidence in respect of controlled land are fit for purpose, maintained to a good standard in accordance with the manufacturers’ operating requirements and those of the ATA to which the operator belongs, and are synchronised so that they record accurately photographic evidence of whether a parking charge is due. NOTE: Information about the design, security and maintenance of equipment and systems should be recorded and maintained for inspection by authorised bodies.”

Clause 7.3 (d) states:

“images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.”

I request that the operator include evidence showing that the ANPR equipment have been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's operating requirements, are synchronised and that the ANPR images have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp.

 

The code paragraph 13 states:

“13.2 Private parking operators must record training information in accordance with clause 17.”

Clause 17 further states:

“17.5. Training Record

17.5.1. Training for individuals performing the following functions must be

recorded:

a) Parking attendant

b) Self-ticketer

c) Compliance officer

d) Complaints handler

e) Appeals handler

f) Customer service

g) Data protection officer

h) Camera contravention processing operative

17.5.2.      Training records must include:

a) Date of training

b) Content of training”

Please provide evidence that the any staff matching clause 17.5.1 who were involved in this case have the records listed in 17.5.2 recorded. Please supply such to confirm compliance.

 

Relationship with landowner in clause 14 (the code)

“14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising

consents relating to signs

h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking

charges.

NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.”

 

I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner to demonstrate authority to operate on the land. The contract and any landowner/operator notice to define what the operator is allowed to do according to paragraph 14. Any such contract must show the duration of the agreement and still be in date. Whilst not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission, this is still possible, for instance due to the incapacitation of the landowner, allowing signage to still be present even if authority to operate no longer exists.

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.

 

 

 

 

userno478

Draft response above. Lost most of the formatting. Seems I am unable to edit the post.

Here's a photo of the car park. A few months old but can see no marked bays.

Any feedback on draft or strategy will be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—”
 
The issued Notice to Keeper (attached) does not state this,

Are you sure? They normally have those words.

userno478

Coupon-mad said:

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—”
 
The issued Notice to Keeper (attached) does not state this,

Are you sure? They normally have those words.

You are right. I misread it.
Any thoughts on the other points? Many thanks

Coupon-mad

I don't do POPLA. Fairly pointless.  Landowner complaint is more powerful.

userno478

Coupon-mad said:

I don't do POPLA. Fairly pointless.  Landowner complaint is more powerful.

Car park is not attached/affiliated to any shops/businesses as such. Wouldn't know who to complain to. POPLA only other option? Apart from ignore?

Coupon-mad

Well yes but POPLA is a pain to do and unlikely to win. Is there a sentence in the joke new 'joint Code' about machine receipts not able to be mistaken for a void receipt?

That sentence is in the DLUHC's proper (withdrawn at the moment) statutory Code of Practice from 2022.  Search it for the word void. And search the joke one for the same word.

If it is there, I'd concentrate on that.

Remove all superfluous stuff like this because POPLA will accept a witness statement from the landowner and the rest - byelaws, residential rights - aren't relevant to your case:

NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.
NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.”
I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner to demonstrate authority to operate on the land. The contract and any landowner/operator notice to define what the operator is allowed to do according to paragraph 14. Any such contract must show the duration of the agreement and still be in date. Whilst not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission, this is still possible, for instance due to the incapacitation of the landowner, allowing signage to still be present even if authority to operate no longer exists.
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.

userno478

Coupon-mad said:

Well yes but POPLA is a pain to do and unlikely to win. Is there a sentence in the joke new 'joint Code' about machine receipts not able to be mistaken for a void receipt?

That sentence is in the DLUHC's proper (withdrawn at the moment) statutory Code of Practice from 2022.  Search it for the word void. And search the joke one for the same word.

If it is there, I'd concentrate on that.

Remove all superfluous stuff like this because POPLA will accept a witness statement from the landowner and the rest - byelaws, residential rights - aren't relevant to your case:

Thanks for this.

Formatting was terrible in my original draft, so hard to find. See excerpt below from my draft addressing that point. A "receipt" is normally after a payment. The wording used -"void transaction receipt" can be ambiguous I think.
Would you go with this alone or add any other.

The driver has said that they attempted to pay for parking on the day in question and the payment machine did not display any error, and printed out a receipt. It seems the machine did not accept payment but the driver was not initially aware. The private parking sector single Code of Practice (version 1 - June 2024) [“the Code”] in clause 6.2 Pay-and-display, NOTE 2 states:

“a “payment failed” slip should be designed so that it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt”

In this case, the failed payment receipt has not been designed so that it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt. Combined with the reported lack of notification by the payment machine, the PCN is in breach of this requirement.

Coupon-mad

You should be saying that it is proven that the receipt slip was easily mistaken for a pay & display ticket because:

(a) it looks just like one (see picture) and

(b) the first appeal relied upon it and still nobody in the family noticed it wasn't one.

userno478

Coupon-mad said:

You should be saying that it is proven that the receipt slip was easily mistaken for a pay & display ticket because:

(a) it looks just like one (see picture) and

(b) the first appeal relied upon it and still nobody in the family noticed it wasn't one.

Ok thanks. I'll do that. So you would ignore the other points I had suggested? If dismissed at POPLA what would next step be? Worth adding some of the other points at POPLA stage to have information for next stage?