JD Parking / Euro Car Parks Parking Charge Notices

Coupon-mad

No you'd need to put that the other way round and ask for your NTH last, or a POPLA code.

Then add something generic about unclear signs in the middle (without implying who was driving).  Then it's an appeal.

munaafg

thanks coupon-mad, I could do with some help - I feel like I am going in circles reading threads and NEWBIES posts

Which of the two would we suggest to use?

[1] NTH
Please see attached Third Party Authorisation Letter dated 15/01/2025

The alleged infringement takes place late at night, the car park signage is unclear and insufficiently lit.

I, the hirer/lessee, appeal this PCN xxxxx as I have not received a notice in my name yet.

I suggest ECP cancels the charge, or provide a POPLA code


[2] ONE SIZE FITS ALL TEMPLATE
Re PCN number: xxxx

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

Please see attached Third Party Authorisation Letter dated 15/01/2025

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

Coupon-mad

First one.

munaafg

I've had a reply from ECP - should I now appeal by POPLA or just ignore?

Gr1pr

Draft a popla appeal,  if you now have a 10 digit popla appeal code  

munaafg

Thanks Gr1pr

I do have a 10 digit POPLA appeal code, the original issue of the PCN was 14/01/2025 and appeal (as keeper, not driver) rejected 14/2/25.  Should I wait any longer to do the POPLA appeal to maximise the 56 day NTK deadline? Or sooner is better?

As far as I understand (all evidence in this thread), I still haven't received a NTK in my name, so I would appeal on that basis - is that right?

The appeal info above was not posted to me, but emailed (it had my name/address in the PDF) if that means anything and doesn't mention a NTK anywhere in the appeal.

Here is my draft, any feedback?
I'm unsure about point 4 (signage) given what they shared - so keen to know if we include or remove that, I am not local to the area so cannot go and get any pictures at night time etc

------ DRAFT APPEAL POPLA --------

Appeal re POPLA Code: [Unique POPLA Verification Code: xxxx] v Euro Car Parks Ltd

Vehicle Registration: [Reg]

POPLA ref: Unique POPLA Verification Code: [POPLA Code]

 

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated [14/01/25] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Euro Car Parks Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged on [28/01/25] but subsequently rejected by email dated 14/02/25. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from the registered keeper.

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: 

1.     The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA')

2.     The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3.     No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 

4.     The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

5.     Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach 

 

1.     The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA')

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator's Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

 

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer refers only to the Notice to Keeper, not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle's keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA's attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I draw POPLA's particular attention to the section entitled 'Keeper Liability' in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, there is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver'.

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle's hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator's claim against me is invalid.

 

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

 

munaafg

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 

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

 

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking+sign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

 

munaafg

5. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach 

BPA’s Code of Practice (22.4) states that:  

“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and

process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

• be registered with the Information Commissioner

• keep to the Data Protection Act

• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data

• follow the guidelines from the Information

Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and

ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal

data such as vehicle registration marks”

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of  Practice (22.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:  

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment  including:  

• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”  

“the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations  under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should  follow the recommendations of this code.” 

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate  whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”  

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to  address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective  solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on  individuals”  

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the  scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a  privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact  assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper  assessment.”  

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you  undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its  introduction is proportionate and necessary.” 

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce  parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies  how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to  minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when  a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”  

“Note:  

... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality  and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon  fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations  should therefore also consider these issues.”  

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the  surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a  lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that  if Euro Car Parks Ltd wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy  impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is  proportionate and necessary. It also states that Euro Car Parks Ltd must regularly  evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.  

It therefore follows that I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to provide proof of regular privacy  impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and  BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact  assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary  and proportionate”. 

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:  

“5.3 Staying in Control  

Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance  system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the  code’s requirements in practice. You should:  

• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it  should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their  request;”  

“7.6 Privacy Notices  

It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in  relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a  requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to  ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance  system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground  level or more prevalent then it may first appear.  

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s  right of subject access.” 

Euro Car Parks Ltd has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the  keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Euro Car Parks Ltd has not  stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on  any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data  Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the  ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the  BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR,  such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.  

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and  in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law,  POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

 

6. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements 

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record  to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and  conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.  

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of  parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:  

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of  parking to which the notice relates;”  

Euro Car Parks Ltd’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [St. Georges Retail Park - Leicester] at [22:25] and  departed at [23:06]”. At no stage does Euro Car Parks Ltd explicitly specify the “period of  parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012. 

Moreover Euro Car Parks Ltd have not provided any pictures of the car parked in a bay, they are just using entrance and exit times. 

Euro Car Parks Ltd uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection  'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering  and leaving the vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay. Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. Euro Car Parks Ltd, however, does  not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks Ltd to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA  requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.  

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking. 

I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was  parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the vehicle parked in the bay, not just the photos of the vehicle entering and exiting a carpark.

I therefore request that you consider my appeal and cancel this unfair parking charge notice due to the reasons mentioned above.

Yours sincerely,

1505grandad

There are several references to "Euro Car Parks"?

munaafg

1505grandad said:

There are several references to "Euro Car Parks"?

The POPLA appeal is against Euro Car Parks?