NTK for company pool car

zapoi

Good afternoon,

As fleet manager for ABC Limited, I received a NTK from Euro Car Parks while somebody was picking up some office stationary at TK Maxx.  I found a receipt for over £70 in petty cash, so contacted TK Maxx to plea with them to no avail.



My initial appeal was worded as:

I am writing on behalf of ABC Limited. While I acknowledge receipt of the NTK, I formally dispute the charge on the following grounds:

ABC Limited is in the process of entering administration, meaning any claim against it will be assessed within the hierarchy of creditors. Pursuing this matter is unlikely to result in any financial recovery and will only add unnecessary costs to your business.

To enable us to assess the validity of your claim, please provide answers to the following:

1. Who contracted Euro Car Parks to operate at this site?
2. Provide an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner showing authority to issue and enforce charges.
3. Is the charge based on a breach of contract or a contractually agreed sum? Please confirm.
4. If it is a contractually agreed sum, supply a valid VAT invoice.
5. What steps were taken to mitigate any loss?

Your failure to mitigate losses (e.g., warning the driver to move) undermines the validity of this claim. I refer you to VCS v. Ibbotson (2012), which sets a precedent for the dismissal of claims where loss mitigation was not attempted.

I await your response addressing the above or confirmation of cancellation. If this matter proceeds to court, it will be robustly defended as the claim is invalid and unenforceable.

Yours faithfully,
Zapoi
Fleet manager

This was rejected with none of the requested details were provided, but I do have a popla reference.  This letter was addressed to Zapoi / ABC Limited.

I visited the car park recently to check for signs.
Having parked this is the view towards the store with no signs at all!



Looking around carefully I saw there was one hidden behind a tree:



I've read as much as I can find on lease cars etc on here, in this case the car is owned by the limited company and employee and anyone else with their permission, who is insured can drive it. 

I'm interested in your thoughts on if ABC Ltd should proceed with popla or wait for a valid VAT invoice and proof of a contract between ECP and ABC Limited before taking any further action?

All advice most welcome.

Kind regards
Zapoi
Fleet Manager
ABC Ltd.

Coupon-mad

I'd appeal to POPLA (see the third post of the NEWBIES thread) and use that first photo to show a lack of contract.

Does your company own the vehicle and receive the NTK quickly, or did ECP write to a lease firm first, who then named your company as the lessee/hirer? 

zapoi

The company owns the vehicle and the NTK came on time.
I'll get the appeal done.

Thanks CM.

zapoi

I just received the operator case summary from popla.
One thing that interests me is that the contract between the redacted client and ECP states:



No authorisation to take legal action against a registered keeper in the contract.  Not sure it that will be relevant to popla or to be used at a later stage.

Fruitcake

zapoi said:

I just received the operator case summary from popla.
One thing that interests me is that the contract between the redacted client and ECP states:



No authorisation to take legal action against a registered keeper in the contract.  Not sure it that will be relevant to popla or to be used at a later stage.

It is very relevant if the driver has not been identified. The keeper can't be held liable. The contract is specific on that point.

zapoi

Excuse me - I can only raise issues in the operators evidence pack before I get to see it?

Thanks for all your help on wining this one.

Decision  - Successful

Assessor Name - Taylor-Jade Ryan

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle has overstayed the maximum time period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. 

• The POPLA system lists the parking operator incorrectly as Euro Car Parks -EW, instead of Euro Car Parks Ltd • 

This inconsistency raises questions about the validity and accuracy of the PCN, and does not accurately identify the parking operator responsible 

• The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces 

• There is no entrance sign on the left of the entrance which would be visible to a driver 

• They have raised several cases and provided links on signage height, and font size 

• Lord Dennings right hand rule has been raised and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, along with other court cases 

• There is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN itself which is a requirement set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA)’s Code of Practice 

• There was not contract nor agreement on the parking charge, and fair opportunity was not given to read about the terms involving the huge charge, which is out of proportion and not saved by the Supreme Court judgement of Parking Eye v Beavis After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds relating to signage. 

They raise new grounds regarding the landowner document. I must advise that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. The comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the comments were not raised in the initial appeal, I am not required to consider these as part of my decision. 

The appellant has provided 

1. An authority letter 

2. A document containing their grounds of appeal and evidence to support their appeal The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: 

By issuing a PCN to the appellant the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have been breached. 

When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. 

I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised that the sum of the charge is not adequately brought to the attention of drivers on the signage. 

I have reviewed the signs in this case and must note that the reference to a £100 PCN is written in a much smaller font than the conditions that precede it, particularly the requirements of the maximum stay times, which is significantly more prominent. 

This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. 

The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. 

While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. 

On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. As such, I cannot consider the evidence has rebutted the appellant’s grounds in relation to the proportionality of this PCN. 

Therefore, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

Coupon-mad

I really liked her typo:

"Lord Dennings right hand rule"

  

zapoi

Complained to MP and got this:

"Looking into your issue you can make a complaint on line at ttps://www.britishparking.co.uk/Contact-Us-Public. This then offers a route to lodge a formal complaint.

Gareth hopes this is useful, he will also raise the issue."

I guess my points that ECP should be made identify and refund with interest anyone duped into paying up to now in this an other ar parks with similar signage, and that the DVLA should stop providing registered keeper data to ECP until they comply with the code will be dealt with in the "also raise the issue" part!

1505grandad

".....and that the DVLA should stop providing registered keeper data to ECP....."

I have my doubts:-

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-14468211/Private-parking-firms-make-requests-car-owner-data-DVLA-two-seconds.html

"Five private parking companies accounted for almost half of the vehicle keeper requests issued, with Parking Eye, Euro Car Parks and Horizon taking the top spots in the 2023/24 financial year. 

The DVLA is estimated to generate nearly £32million in revenue from parking management companies in 2023/24 by selling details."

Coupon-mad

zapoi said:

Complained to MP and got this:

"Looking into your issue you can make a complaint on line at ttps://www.britishparking.co.uk/Contact-Us-Public. This then offers a route to lodge a formal complaint.

Gareth hopes this is useful, he will also raise the issue."

I guess my points that ECP should be made identify and refund with interest anyone duped into paying up to now in this an other ar parks with similar signage, and that the DVLA should stop providing registered keeper data to ECP until they comply with the code will be dealt with in the "also raise the issue" part!

Tell him about the HoC Backbench business on May 6th:

https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal51564

...and ask him to attend and please push for a robust statutory Code of Practice to replace the nonsense version cooked up by the BPA & IPC last year to ensure the constant flow of millions of PCNs.

zapoi

Update on MP comms below.  I expect to see a red hand appearing soon!

----
Dear  Andrew Pester CEO British Parking Association

Mr xxx has contacted Gareth Bacon MP following a successful appeal on a parking ticket from Euro Car Parks Ltd (ECP) at Cray Avenue Retail Park in Orpington.(attached).

He is concerned that a number of residents may have had the same penalty, but not the tenacity of Mr xxx, and therefore have been unfairly penalised.

Gareth would be grateful for this case to result in a change of signage to clearly show his constituents what the regulations are for parking in the area and the possible consequence of their actions could be.

Regards

Judi Ellis
Caseworker for Gareth Bacon MP

---

Dear Gareth,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice where evidence can be supplied and our members internal complaints policy has been exhausted. We are unable to become involved in individual Parking Charge disputes.

 

Please be advised that the signage at Cray Avenue Retail Park in Orpington signage would need to be compliant in line with Version 9 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and therefore the Operator has until December 2026 to update signage in accordance with the Single Code of Practice.

 

Following the cancellation of the Parking Charge, POPLA have made a judgement call on the size of the Parking Charge amount – this does not necessarily mean there has been a breach of our Code of Practice. 

 

We will be sending an Area Manager to the site to conduct a Mystery Shop visit whereby they will review the signage on site and provide a report on any compliance issues.  If compliance issues are identified we will then work with the Operator to resolve these. 

 

Kind regards,

Harriet Lock

Compliance Officer

British Parking Association

---

Dear Mr xxx

Gareth has received the response below about the signage. Gareth has confirmed that a member of the conservative team will be attending the debate to respond.

Regards

Judi Ellis
Caseworker for Gareth Bacon MP