PCN at Euro car park Crewe

Gr1pr

There is no next step after popla 

You would ignore the debt collectors letters, respond to any subsequent Letter of Claim,  followed by possibly defending an MCOL court claim 

Plan A is the best option here for you,  always was,  always will be,  a landowner complaint and subsequent cancellation 

Coupon-mad

But if you exhaust Plan A then do POPLA with what I said as point 1, then a point about the tariff sign not including the £100 and a lack of large, compliant entrance sign. And thirdly, no landowner authority.

userno478

Gr1pr said:

There is no next step after popla 

You would ignore the debt collectors letters, respond to any subsequent Letter of Claim,  followed by possibly defending an MCOL court claim 

Plan A is the best option here for you,  always was,  always will be,  a landowner complaint and subsequent cancellation 

Coupon-mad said:

But if you exhaust Plan A then do POPLA with what I said as point 1, then a point about the tariff sign not including the £100 and a lack if compliant entrance sign. And thirdly, no landowner authority.

Thank you both. Plan A (landowner complaint) not an option I don't think as site not affiliated to any commercial entity nearby, as far as I can tell.

The picture of the carpark is from google. I'm not familiar with the area and it was a one-off parking experience. I cannot remember if signage was as in picture exactly. Internal appeal response letter includes signage in large but without background context. So unsure if I can use the tariff sign option.

So far, my draft includes unclear failed payment receipt, no delineated parking bays, landowner authority, requesting ANPR maintenance/compliance records, and requesting training records of operator staff.
Would you care to look over my draft? I can post it if so.

Gr1pr

Always include no landowner authority,  regardless of your own knowledge 

Ditto with signage too  ( ECP signs are usually similar with the £100 not prominent  )

The point is that you put them to strict proof of their claim,  contracts,  signage,  everything 

What you personally know or think is generally irrelevant 

ECP have to pass every test put to them 

Coupon-mad

userno478 said:

Gr1pr said:

There is no next step after popla 

You would ignore the debt collectors letters, respond to any subsequent Letter of Claim,  followed by possibly defending an MCOL court claim 

Plan A is the best option here for you,  always was,  always will be,  a landowner complaint and subsequent cancellation 

Coupon-mad said:

But if you exhaust Plan A then do POPLA with what I said as point 1, then a point about the tariff sign not including the £100 and a lack if compliant entrance sign. And thirdly, no landowner authority.

Thank you both. Plan A (landowner complaint) not an option I don't think as site not affiliated to any commercial entity nearby, as far as I can tell.

So far, my draft includes unclear failed payment receipt, no delineated parking bays, landowner authority, requesting ANPR maintenance/compliance records, and requesting training records of operator staff.

No - not ANPR - just the 3 things I said. Keep it shorter.

The picture of the carpark is from google. I'm not familiar with the area and it was a one-off parking experience. I cannot remember if signage was as in picture exactly. Internal appeal response letter includes signage in large but without background context. So unsure if I can use the tariff sign option.

OF COURSE you say what I said to say about signs!  I haven't seen them either, so why do you think I confidently typed the things I said above, about signs?.

Think about whose burden of proof it is...

userno478

Popla appeal was submitted. Evidence uploaded by operator and 6 days now to comment. Reviewing evidence for comments.

1505grandad

Check that the photos re parking event are stamped the same date and times (as the event)

userno478

1505grandad said:

Check that the photos re parking event are stamped the same date and times (as the event)

Thanks. Photos appear to be correctly time stamped.

1505grandad

Another thought  -  did you request landowner agreement in your appeal  -  and if so have they provided the relevant document?

userno478

1505grandad said:

Another thought  -  did you request landowner agreement in your appeal  -  and if so have they provided the relevant document?

Hi. Outline of my POPLA appeal:

• Confusing "payment failed" slip.
  • Private parking sector single Code of Practice (version 1 - June 2024) 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”
• Landowner agreement
  • The private parking sector single Code of Practice (version 1 - June 2024) in clause 14(Relationship with landowner) states:
  • “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.”
• No proper contract formed due to non-fulfillable condition.
  • Signage at site states must park within marked bays.
  • British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice version 9 (February 2024), section 19.11 about Surface markings – delineated parking bays states Where relevant obligations re quire motorists to park within delineated parking bays, surface markings must be applied
• Signage
  • The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice version 9 (February 2024) clause 19 includes requirements for signs
  • The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with this clause
• Training records
  • The private parking sector single Code of Practice (version 1 - June 2024) in clause 13 states: “13.2 Private parking operators must record training information in accordance with clause 17.”
• ANPR compliance/maintenance records

Some point additional to what @Coupon-mad suggested but thought on balance to include.

My comments so far:

1. Page ?? of operator evidence park states: Please be advised that it clearly states on the payment slip that this is not a parking ticket and is a void transaction receipt.
   
   The "payment slip" is confusingly designed. At the top, it states "Please display ticket on dashboard". This suggests it is a parking ticket. Then at the bottom, it  states "Not a parking ticket"
   
   I maintain that this slip has not been designed, so it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt, against the advice in clause 6.2 of the Code of Practice (version 1, June 2024).
   
   It does not use unambiguous terms: eg "Payment failed"
2. The supplied pictures confirm the lack of any surface markings (noncompliant with Code of practice version 9, Feb 2024, section 19.11 regarding delineated parking bays). It is therefore impossible to comply with the stated condition (park only within marked bays) of the contract. Therefore, a contract cannot be properly formed.
3. The Landowner Authority contract in figure 4 does not address points e, f, i, and j of clause 14.1 of the code of practice (version 1) (seems only part of the contract sent, an appendix - this usually the case?)
4. No evidence received from operator showing clause 13.2 and clause 17.5 of version 1 of the code of practice ie training records.