We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal
“Having carefully considered the supporting evidence provided by you, Euro Car Parks (ECP) have
it then includes
- methods to pay
- info on POPLA appeals process
- picture of:
-number plate,
-car driving (cannot see where it is), time stamp has been added,
-number plate an
-car rear lights which have been time stamped.
- picture of sign dated at start of January
- ECPPsrkbuddy (showing if number plate had bought ticket).
Comments
-
I want to draft a popla response with the following points:
- There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location nor boundary of the venue
- No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
- 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
- No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
- Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
- The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
- Notice to Keeper wording not POFA 2012 compliant.
Will this work?
0 -
Appeal re POPLA Code: [Unique POPLA Verification Code: XXXXX] v Euro Car Parks Ltd
Vehicle Registration: XXXX
POPLA ref: [Unique POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx]
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated [20/02/25] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Eurocarparks Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged on [6/02/25] but subsequently rejected by email dated 20/02/25.
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:
- Notice to Keeper wording not POFA 2012 compliant.
- No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
- There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location nor boundary of the venue
- 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
- No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
- Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
- The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used
1. Notice to Keeper wording not POFA 2012 compliant.
This operator fails the Schedule 4 wording on the same basis that another recent (same wording) Premier Park 'Notice to Keeper' was found as non-compliant by Ombudsman POPLA Assessor Timothy Jessop (and other Assessors since) so for consistency, I point out this decision from a few years ago which is in the public domain:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70454598#Comment_70454598
As the appellant has not been identified as the driver, we must ensure this PCN has met the requirements of PoFA.
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA states the must (9f) warn the keeper that if after the Period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given —
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph
(d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”
The PCN issued to the appellant states “If within 28 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle."
In this case I do not consider that the operator has fully met the requirements of PoFA, as by informing the appellant it can seek to recover payment after 28 days, it has failed to meet section (9f), as this 28-day period will not begin until the day after the notice is given. The day after the notice is given cannot be determined as Euro Car Parks Ltd. have not recorded the date the PCN was received in the post to the keeper. As such, we cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.
2. 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, 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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
I would like to question if Euro Car Parks Ltd has authority to issue PCNs. The contract must be shown, signed and dated, and how the hours of operation on the contract are. This will allow POPLA to confirm if the contract is either incorrect, the signage is incorrect and that the operator is not following the terms of the contract.
Also Euro Car Parks have identified themselves as the 'creditor' in the Notice To Keeper I received. The signage clearly states that Euro Car Parks manage the car park on behalf of Iceland Foods.
A disclosed principal means that the contract is with Iceland Foods, especially where an agent takes no responsibility for the land.
The authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Ex 169, is authority for the legal position, that where there is a disclosed principal, an agent cannot sue.
Therefore Euro Car Parks is not established as the creditor, has no standing to litigate and is merely acting as an agent, issuing charges on behalf of the principal, the disclosed landowner Iceland Foods.
Therefore as Registered Keeper, I cannot be held liable for this charge.
3. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location nor boundary of the venue
The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source of lighting.
Additionally, there was a lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage throughout the car park in question (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice 19.2 and 27.2). There is no marked parking bay throughout the venue which causes confusion to the applicability of the Euro Car Parks Ltd’s contract, that was never entered into in the first place.
The failure to light signage so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located. The lengthiness of Euro Car Parks Ltd’s signage (in terms of word count) all written in tiny text the across of the sign (see Figure 4).
All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
- Locate a sign indicating entrance
- Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
- Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness
- Decipher the confusing information being presented
0 -
4. 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.
5. 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 [Leicester Mansfield Street] at [14:37] and departed at [14:53]”. 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 Smart Parking 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, Smart Parking 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.
6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The BPA Code of Practice point 21.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."
The NtK in question contains 3 images; one of a close-up license plate images. One image that is completely blackened with a cars rear lights on and another image with the car in question. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by Euro Car Parks Ltd’s APRN. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and Euro Car Parks Ltd claim was unauthorized.
Please review the copy of the NTK provided, and I am sure you will not be satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.
These images have been digitally altered by Euro Car Parks to show the date and time.
I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than just passing by.
Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.
7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
Paragraph 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
Euro Car Parks Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
There is no information indicates that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.
I therefore request that you consider my appeal and cancel this unfair parking charge notice due to the reasons mentioned above.
Yours sincerely,
0 -
Probably won't work but no biggie if not, you just ignore the come back when DCB try a doomed claim.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for the response. Is there anything I could add to make it stronger?Coupon-mad said:Probably won't work but no biggie if not, you just ignore the come back when DCB try a doomed claim.0 -
Anything else I could addIneedhelp101 said:
Thanks for the response. Is there anything I could add to make it stronger?Coupon-mad said:Probably won't work but no biggie if not, you just ignore the come back when DCB try a doomed claim.0 -
Dear all, euro car parks has responded to my popla appeal. I have 7 days to provide evidence. Should I?They are claiming that I said I was not driver. In fact, I copied the format from this forum stating that I will not be revealing who the driver was and do not have to do so.Then there’s some nonesense about the use of camera, private land and additional photos taken at night time. Arguably they probably used flash and the font is still tiny.0
-
Comments stage is already covered in the third post of the NEWBIES thread. Standard.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
"....and additional photos taken at night time...."
Check that photos are date & time stamped relevant to the parking event.2 -
1505grandad said:"....and additional photos taken at night time...."
Check that photos are date & time stamped relevant to the parking event.Coupon-mad said:Comments stage is already covered in the third post of the NEWBIES thread. Standard.Thank you! will take a look at it and do it tonight.Side question: is there any way to reward those that oversee this forum?0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards