Euro Car Parks - Pure Gym - Chelmsford

Coupon-mad

"I have dully passed to our Data Protection Officer"

     

Kazaa

1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 point 2 (e & f) and therefore is not POFA compliant

2) Permission to park – Failure to Comply with BPA

3) Authority to Issue Tickets – No Evidence of Landowner Authority

4) EuroCarPark Signage – Non compliance BPA

5) No Planning Permission from Essex County Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

 

1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 8 point 2 (e & f) and therefore is not POFA compliant

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. EuroCarParks Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory process if driver is not identified as follows:-

“state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper”

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (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 NTK fails to state that the operator has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper only if all conditions under Schedule 4 are met. This is a mandatory clause and must be worded in a way that clearly reflects this statutory condition. ECP’s notice omits or misrepresents this, thereby invalidating any claim of keeper liability.

The NTK must inform the keeper that they may notify the operator of the name and address of the driver and pass liability to them. However, the NTK issued by ECP implies an obligation, not an invitation, and fails to clearly outline the keeper’s rights and options, contrary to POFA.

 

2) Permission to park - Failure to Comply with BPA

I would like to point out that the vehicle was at the location because the driver was attending the gym on site—a legitimate use of the premises. The site has a keypad system for vehicle registration, and the driver believes they used this system correctly. A check-in is shown on the gym’s mobile app during the relevant time, this has been uploaded as attachment 1.

This suggests the Parking Charge Notice was issued in error against a vehicle using the facilities in good faith. 

No evidence has been presented by Euro Car Parks to suggest that the driver was not entitled to park there or that the keypad system was functioning correctly at the time.

3)               Authority to Issue Tickets – No Evidence of Landowner Authority

 EuroCarParks (hereafter named as 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 copy of the contract with the landowner. Operator have not provided me with their contract with the landowner. As if a ‘genuine customer’ gets ticketed then this should be cancelled. After all, the reason a land owner employs a parking company is to stop non-customers abusing the car park – and not to deter genuine customers from using the site. I have provided evidence that I am a ‘genuine customer ‘to the operator however they have not taken this into account.

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).

 It has been confirmed CBRE limited are not the client and therefore using a contract with CBRE limited is worthless as they are simply the service provided and NOT the landlord. Proof is shown in Attachment 2  between an email exchange with the managing director.

 

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)               EuroCarPark Signage – Non compliance BPA

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:

“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

The signage does not comply with the BPA requirements as it cannot be read by drivers. A driver entering the car park cannot see a sign on top left as this is a blind spot for any driver. Pictures can be seen attached, it is impossible for a driver to see the hidden sign which is on the top left as indicated below in Pic 2.

Pic 1 shows the entrance to the car park and no sign is visible.

5) No Planning Permission from Essex County Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search in Essex county Council planning database does not show any planning permission for the

pole-mounted ANPR cameras for the Meadows Car Park Chelmsford, nor does it show any

advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2 therefore this is a breach of POFA Paragraph 12.

UK government guidance on advertisement requires:

“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the

Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to

as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement

that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement

would otherwise have consent under. It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without

consent.”

This clearly proves the operator has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on

illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning

application had been made.

I request the operator to provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted

(and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was

gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates.

Please review and let me know if i need to add anything else to the above. Thanks

Coupon-mad

Didn't their typo that I quoted make you laugh as much as it did us? 

Kazaa

Haha i just saw your comment now. You know they aint doing anything. In regards to the POPLA appeal any comments or ready to be submitted?

Coupon-mad

Sorry I'm at work but still laughing about 'dully'

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

"I have dully passed to our Data Protection Officer"

     

A not too shining example of spell check or, as some of us call it, a brain!

Kazaa

So done the POPLA appeal got the usual template "Operator Evidence" nothing of real value . My comments are as follows :-- 

1. NTK is NOT POFA-Compliant – Misrepresentation of Keeper Liability

While ECP claims their NTK complies with Schedule 4 of POFA, they fail to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(f). The wording in their NTK does not clearly state that keeper liability only applies if all the conditions under Schedule 4 are met.

The NTK misleads the keeper by implying an automatic transfer of liability, which POFA does not permit. It also fails to properly “invite” the keeper to identify the driver, instead suggesting an obligation. These are key statutory requirements. If they are not met, keeper liability cannot be established, regardless of the car’s presence on-site.

2. Legitimate Use – Keypad Evidence Ignored

ECP has ignored clear evidence I submitted that the driver was a legitimate gym customer, who likely attempted to use the keypad system as required. A gym app check-in was provided proving the visit on the date in question. ECP's response contains no evidence that the keypad system was functioning correctly at the time or that user error was ruled out.

This violates BPA Code of Practice Section 17 on keying errors:

Operators must investigate and cancel charges when evidence shows the motorist was a genuine user who attempted to comply.

ECP failed to:

• Check for minor keying errors.

• Offer the reduced £20 charge for possible keying issues.

• Investigate the keypad logs for partial matches.

3. Landowner Authority Remains Unproven

Figure 4 is not a full, unredacted landowner contract. No proof is shown that the actual landowner (not a managing agent like CBRE) has granted ECP the authority to issue and enforce charges, or that the contract allows for pursuing registered keepers via POFA. BPA Code of Practice Section 7.3 requires this detail.

4. Signage Inadequate and Poorly Positioned

ECP’s photos show signs but fail to demonstrate that the signage was visible from all approach angles, especially the entrance. My evidence clearly shows blind spots and obscured signs, breaching BPA Code of Practice 18.3. Drivers must be able to understand the parking terms before parking—not while already committed.

5. Planning Consent Absent

No evidence was provided by ECP showing that planning permission was obtained for the ANPR cameras or signage under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007. Without advertising consent, signage is unlawful and cannot form a binding contract.

---

Conclusion

ECP has failed to rebut the original appeal grounds. Their NTK is not POFA-compliant, and they have provided no evidence of system reliability, keypad logs, or fair treatment of genuine users.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel the charge.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 1 and 5 which have no legs.

Pick your best points only.

Kazaa

Well that sucks : - Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gregory McGlynn

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The notice to keeper does not comply with sub paragraph 9 point 2 (e & f) so is not PoFA compliant. • The driver had permission to park there as they were attending the gym onsite. The parking operator did not offer the reduced fee of £20 when an appeal was raised. • There is no evidence the parking operator has authority to issue tickets or has landowner authority to manage the land. • The signage does not comply with BPA code of practice. The entrance sign is not visible. • There is no planning permission from Essex County Council for pole mounted ANPR cameras. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has reiterated on their grounds within their comments. The appellant has provided an appeal document including images of the entrance of the car park, an email with CBRE and evidence of gym history attendance as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. Section 9 2 (e) of PoFA 2012 states: “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper” (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (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 states does state the required information in the section titled "PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012”. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. I will be assessing the grounds of appeal using the new Single Code of Practice which replaced the 2024 British Parking Association (BPA) Code practice and relates to all PCN’s issued on or after 1 October 2024. However, the grounds of appeal relating to signage at the site will be assessed using the 2024 BPA Code of Practice Version 9 as this still currently applies. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows there is an entrance sign at the site that advises motorists it is a pay and display car park. After reviewing the parking operators’ evidence and the appellants evidence I am satisfied that this would be visible to motorists turning into the site to enter it. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows the signs at the site state “…PAY ON ARRIVAL CAR PARK…UP TO 2 HOURS £2.50…”. The parking operator has provided images of the car park showing signs are installed and a site map showing the locations of the signs at the site. After reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient signage installed throughout the site and the signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of BPA code. The parking operator uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the site to record how long each vehicle stays on the site for, this is then compared to the transaction list to check each vehicle has purchased the correct amount of parking time. As the transaction list provided by the operator shows that no parking time was purchased, the parking operator issued a PCN to the appellant. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the parking operator has provided a signed contract from 22 October 2018 that renews every 5 years automatically. I am satisfied that they have shown they have landowner authority to manage the land and issue PCNs. The email the appellant has provided from CBRE also states that the contract formed when using the site is formed with Euro Car Parks which further shows that they have authority to manage the land. I note the appellant has said the parking operator does not have planning permission from Essex County Council. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the relevant planning authority directly. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Under paragraph g of the Code, the fee is required to be reduced if the vehicle would have been permitted to park, but the driver failed to enter their registration into a terminal or device. There is no information on the signs regarding this being an option at the site, however this information does not always need to be on the signs so I do not doubt that there may be an option at the gym to register for a parking permit. I note the appellant has said the parking operator failed to offer the reduced fee of £20 when they appealed, looking at the appeals the appellant made to the parking operator I can see they first appealed on 20 March. The parking operator rejected their appeal on 3 April. In their appeal to the parking operator on 20 March the appellant did not say the driver was using the gym or provide any evidence of gym usage. I can see the appellant contacted the parking operator again on the 4 April, the day after their appeal was rejected and said they provide an appeal and documentation; however, their appeal had already been rejected. If there is an option for gym users to register for a permit then the appellant needed to provide this information and evidence as the first stage of appeal, while I appreciate gum usage evidence was provided to POPLA it was not provided in their initial appeal the parking operator was unable to consider and was not required to consider if a keying error had occurred. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments reiterate the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver did not pay for parking to cover their stay on the car park or have a permit authorising them to park and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist, just wait for you letter before claim and then your N1SDT claim form where you will win - in court - if it gets that far.