ECP ANPR overstay by 11 minutes - BPA OS CoP v9 - Appeal as Driver or Keeper?

motor_saver

Dear MSE Community, 

I have received a PCN by ECP for an overstay in one of "their" car park by 11 minutes (to be exact 11'32" ) . Their NTK is PoFA compliant and uses the new wording on pg. 2. 

I am at POPLA stage. ECP have rejected, obviously, the first appeal. I would like to base the appeal on the two grounds: (1) minimum grace period not provided (article 13.3 in OS CoP says the minimum grace period of 10' should be added to the end of the parking event,  meaning there were only 1'32" to drive through, find a bay, etc.) and (2) covered signage at the entrance of the car park. 

Should I appeal as a driver or as the keeper to win the two arguments? 

Here below a few facts on the alleged PCN:
a) The car park surrounds a retail park and provides 4hrs free parking between 6am and 11pm, operated by ANPR (1 camera overseeing the entrance/exit of the car park).
b) The parking occured within the above time.
c) There is constructions site just at the car park entrance
d) The pictures of the entry/exit from the car park report only the reg. plate w/o any time stamp on them. 
e) From previous appeals, it is clear ECP have a contract with the agent of the landlord, however there are unable to demostrate the agent has a relationship with the actual landlord. 
f) The NTK issue date is 7 days after the event.
g) I am still awaiting for a potential good news from one of the shop managers.

Thank you! 

Coupon-mad

Admit to driving.

What are the signs inside like?

motor_saver

Thanks @Coupon-mad!

Pls see below the pictures of the signage inside and at the entrance. 

On a separate topic, how strongly could we argue that ECP have a legitimate right on that land? 

As part of previous evidence packs they shared at POPLA stage when appealing another PCN, they showed a contract with a property agent, however there was no trace that the agent had any legitimate right on that land. 

Also, by looking at the signage at the entrance, it does not says who the landlord or the agent is, making the sign not compliant to CoP v9.

Any thoughts?

Umkomaas

That detailed ECP sign will form a main thrust in your POPLA appeal. Others have had their appeals upheld at POPLA previously. 

The £100 on the sign is in minuscule, unbolded text and so it doesn't meet the clarity & prominence required as per the Beavis case and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (fairness test for terms & notices) - credit @Coupon-mad for the wording of this paragraph.

Please read from page 416 of the POPLA Decisions Announcement (pinned near the top of the forum thread index) where you will find a number of POPLA decisions going against ECP on this very point. Reading the linked original threads might also help. A bit of work for you, but could be time very well spent. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337/popla-decisions/p416

Car1980

Umkomaas said:

That detailed ECP sign will form a main thrust in your POPLA appeal. Others have had their appeals upheld at POPLA previously. 

The £100 on the sign is in minuscule, unbolded text and so it doesn't meet the clarity & prominence required as per the Beavis case and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (fairness test for terms & notices) - credit @Coupon-mad for the wording of this paragraph.

Please read from page 416 of the POPLA Decisions Announcement (pinned near the top of the forum thread index) where you will find a number of POPLA decisions going against ECP on this very point. Reading the linked original threads might also help. A bit of work for you, but could be time very well spent. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337/popla-decisions/p416

Also stick in the phrase "hierarchy of information."

Welcoming you should not be the most prominent phrase in a contract.

motor_saver

thank you @Umkomaas and @Car1980 for insight. Will draft my appeal. 

BTW has anyone checked compliance of ECO sign vs the new CoP v9 (i.e. font size)? 

motor_saver

Hi All, 

I have created by appeal to Popla referencing the new CoP - would you mind giving a quick look before submission? 

Also, it is important to note that the new CoP references grace period in a different way than previous version, given that the grace period shall be added on top of the parking time, where the parking time is the time a vehicle has stayed in a controlled land. 

Finally, given that appeal are limited to 10k words, can I attach this file and write in the appeal to refer to the attachment? 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E-NjwI45JB95sbV-sdlWziDE5yiLBCke/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

The grace period (minimum 10 minutes) has always been added after the period of parking. The grace period hasn't changed. 

kryten3000

motor_saver said:

Finally, given that appeal are limited to 10k words, can I attach this file and write in the appeal to refer to the attachment? 

Upload the appeal as a PDF and put "see uploaded document for full text of appeal" in the appeal box.

motor_saver

Coupon-mad said:

The grace period (minimum 10 minutes) has always been added after the period of parking. The grace period hasn't changed. 

Thanks for coming back - here is just an extract from the new CoP. Whilst the definition of grace period has not changed, in the new CoP there is a specific definition of the parking period at paragraph 2.24: "Parking Period the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land, which includes the consideration period. " 

Therefore (based on my understanding), if ECP uses the minimum requirement for the grace period, the new CoP allows them to issue the PCN at the maximum stay + grace period (in my case exactly at 4h 10'). The difference I note (again, my knowledge is limited here) vs the previous CoP is that the grace period would have applied at the end of parking event, meaning from the time the car was actually parked/stationary that would occur later than when someone enters the controlled land (in my case, the maximum stay could have been a time greater than 4h 10'). 

Please keep me honest in case I have missed something when reading the two CoPs. 

Thank you @kryten3000 for confirmation. 

 

Gr1pr

I am not even sure what your point is

Both the old and new CoPs allowed a minimum grace period at the end of a valid parking period,  of 10 minutes,  like coupon mad mentioned 

To issue a pcn after 11 minutes is petty and easily explained in court to a judge,  especially the meaning of the word , minimum  ! Ditto at Popla too

I think that you are overthinking it