Euro Parking Services PCN

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

JN33 said:

I have received a new PCN for:

"Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park" 

The double yellow lines are actually on the opposite side of the road

I have attached a picture of the PCN as you can see was for 2m 10s

I never left the vehicle nor did I deliberately stop.

I actually dropped a bottle of water onto the floor (lid sealed) if I remember correctly, which then resulted in me scuffling about to get it. Surely there is some grace period? 2 minutes?!

PCN:

Joke PCN. Utter scam:

- Covert CCTV,

- no signs

- and it's not a double reds no stopping zone!

There is meant to be a min 5 minute consideration period in the nonsense 'Joint Code 'but they worded the clause and Annex about consideration periods to effectively say that they could call ANYWHERE a 'restricted area' and then offer zero consideration period - immediate ticketing!

There was also an error in the 2022 DLUHC code about this (against all common sense for contract law, there was a 'Zero' consideration period wrongly in the table in that Annex too). 

The MHCLG must remove that mistake sharpish because this covert surveillance and immediate ticketing is flooding in. I'd say we are seeing this far more commonly since the Joint Code provided this loophole enabling their members to slap up CCTV cameras literally everywhere and call all entry roads and some car parks 'a restricted area'.

Try an appeal - and IAS appeal in this case - and say that this isn't a restricted area. It us denied that the car was "Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park."  There are no lines or signs and in any case, the minimum consideration period to read a sign applies and that's not 2 minutes!

Close up of the joke NTK; hang your heads in shame Euro Parking Services 

JN33 said:

Operator's Prima Facie Case

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 09/05/2025 15:44:53. 

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 15/04/2025.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/04/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 15/04/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

The Appellant has been observed to park their vehicle on the site. The site signage terms and conditions state Restricted Zone. Strictly no parking, stopping or waiting at any time. The photographic evidence shows the Appellant's vehicle parked in the restricted zone. Therefore there has been a contravention.  

-------

Do I want to respond, or shall I just refer this straight to arbitration? Damned if you do, damned if you don't - I already know it's going to be rejected.

Coupon-mad said:
You'll lose anyway because IPC firms are pretending that restricted areas are the same as no stopping zones. Utter joke.


JN33 said:
Agreed, that's why the end of the reply I stated "I already know it's going to be rejected". I'll refer straight to Arbitration 

UPDATE 

JN33 said:

Appeal: Dismissed 

"The Appellant should understand ...

SNIPPED THE INITIAL TEMPLATE DRIVEL ALWAYS SEEN...

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore the Operator is entitled to assume as the registered keeper, he was also the driver. 

Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. 

The signage at this site makes it clear that the site is private land and that vehicles are not permitted to park, stop or wait at any time and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the restricted area. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances, including being stopped for a short period cannot be taken into account. The signage is clear that no parking, stopping or waiting is permitted and it is the driver's responsibility to read the signage. An absence of road markings is not a valid defence. The rules concerning road markings are not the same on private land as on public roads. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion. 

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed." 

Wait for my waste of paper letters and then we'll see if a LBC arrives, signage is clear if you're on the opposite side of the road perhaps lol

Lowlights from that IAS 'decision' 

Of course, the supposed independent 'adjudicator' is firstly trotting out the laughable Elliott v Loake which is inapplicable - no judge accepts it in my experience - and which that same 'hired legal' would also use if/when they also turn up to hearings. Same legals...? Conflict of interest, much?!

Mitigating/extenuating circumstances, including being stopped for a short period cannot be taken into account.

The signage is clear that no parking, stopping or waiting is permitted and it is the driver's responsibility to read the signage.

An absence of road markings is not a valid defence. The rules concerning road markings are not the same on private land as on public roads.

= Latest joke decision from the IAS.

Since the Joint Code, the abuse is worse. This isn't a 'no stopping zone'.

Despite the PCN's claim, that kerb is not:

- marked with double yellows

- on cross hatching

- in a restricted car park.

It is a completely unmarked road with covert CCTV trained on it deliberately and a PCN issued later by post, showing the vehicle pulled over for 2 minutes flat.

And the IAS says it's OK!

Nobody has any confidence in the IAS, not least because it and the IPC are both owned by United Trade & Industry - which company name used to be the Independent Parking Committee, aka the IPC - where the person with significant control of UTI (did nobody tell them that's a Urinary Tract Infection?) ... is Will Hurley Ltd.

And they boast about only upholding 5% of adjudicated appeals... oh yes, and he registered a limited company called 'The Independent Appeals Service Ltd' and even their AOS members say that a duped consumer going to the IAS is 'futilely going through the motions':

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html?m=1

Joke PCNs like this, aided and abetted by a non-impartial joke of a futile appeals service has outlived its sell-by date after ten years of misleading consumers with their dross.

This is worse than clamping. 

 

JN33

@Coupon-mad crazy. Unfortunately too many people are happy to pay in fear of a CCJ due to lack of misinformation online and lack of access to forums like this.

Thanks for all of your help, we'll see if a LBC ever arrives - I suspect they will and i'll see it through.