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.