Parking Fine Euro car parks

helpindeed

Hi, ECP have come back with a response. Have attached the relevant parts the rest are just pics of signs and copies of fine. I noticed that in their contract with the landowner there is no mention of the leisure centre. 

Is there any reply that needs to be sent to POPLA? 

Gr1pr

Look for any issues in their evidence pack that supports your appeal and/or makes their position worse 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

So the signs you are presented with are:

1. Entrance sign on arrival: ECP say the car park is 'permits only' (college, presumably, but that's not stated) before 4.30pm and then 'pay & display' only, after that time. There is no permit scheme operating after 4.30pm according to the ECP signs.

2. ECP's yellow & blue supposed 'full t&cs' sign says the same as the entrance sign and warns of a £100 PCN only in three circumstances ('failure to comply with the following'). Oddly, there is no mention at all of any other arrangements, a keypad or any repercussions for making a typo or putting in the wrong reg (or the keypad failing to upload the VRM for gym goers). Therefore, there are no contractual terms relating to the keypad.

3. As you approach the Leisure Centre doors, a completely different instruction on the walls outside (the black & white sign with a yellow numberplate picture) mentions unspecified 'permitted hours' but offers a new option to members (not offered by ECP outside in the car park).

4. Then when a gym user goes inside, there is a movable 'A-Board' (which the busy gym staff may or may not remember to turn round every day at or after 4.30pm) which has two completely different messages, one of which says you can't park at all, and the other vaguely talks about a 'PENALTY' which is not possible on private land and is an unspecified sum. And neither side of the A-Board even mentions Euro Car Parks, so that new offer (to input your VRM to gain 3 free hours parking) is offered by the Leisure Centre only, not the operator. Euro Car Parks cannot possibly claim to have created the A-Board offer or instructions because their name isn't on it and under the CoP they are not allowed to use the word 'Penalty.' These must be gym-made signs to try to fairly inform members and to make up for the lack of mention of the keypad (or '3 hours free') in the t&cs in the car park.

5. Then at the keypad, whilst it has the Euro Car Parks colours it does not specify the sum of any PCN you are supposedly claiming 'exemption' from, and it refers you to the t&cs 'as displayed in the car park'. But those t&cs don't even mention a keypad or an obligation to input a VRM correctly, or at all. And they are silent about any way to claim 3 hours free parking. It's not even a thing, according to the ECP t&cs outside in the car park.

Therefore, whether a gym user enters their VRM or not, or makes a typo, or even if the keypad fails as happened on the day, no PCN arises because the driver has not breached any of the three t&cs outside on the yellow sign. There's no relevant obligation (POFA phrase), no breach and no PCN arises even if a gym user walks right past the keypad.

Bottom line: the signs outside don't match the keypad inside, which means there was no breach (whatever the issue with the keypad) and this PCN was not properly given.

The terms are at best ambiguous, which as a matter of law (Consumer Rights Act 2015), ambiguous terms in a contract 'must' be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer. And that is that the offer of 3 hours free is made by the Leisure Centre to members, and (even though they supply the keypad) ECP are a stranger to the contract relating to the keypad and 3 hours free offer.

Was your POPLA appeal 'unclear signs' point pretty much as above?

Did you add any other points like 'no landowner authority' from the third post of the NEWBIES thread? Or not?

What did they attach as evidence that there was not a similar VRM input that day? The exact same list as before that ended at 7.03?

helpindeed

@Coupon-mad copy posted what you wrote above and I did not add 'no landowner authority' point from the NEWBIES thread

So the initial list that was sent with the refusal of ECP appeal is below:

They now have posted 2 new lists on the POPLA appeal as below:
  


But they have failed to address my evidences of the picture of VRM entry onto the tablet and their system accepting it as Parking Registered.

They have solely relied on the first appeal with ECP where it was mentioned that there may have been an error of inputting an incorrect digit when inputting the number plate. I have also noticed that they have attached the signage location and plan. In this, there is no mentioning of the sign on the leisure centre entrance, but within their evidence they have attached the image below. is this something to point out? 

 

Car1980

PPCs never defend signage. They only ever state it is clear and has been audited.

If your one digit out VRM isn't on their printouts then that is concerning from an evidence suppression angle

Coupon-mad

But your appeal already addresses the signage issue. Does their redacted new list include anything part-matching your VRM?

helpindeed

@Car1980 At the time of the of making the first appeal the keeper didn't knew why the parking fine was issued, so it was assumed that it must have been due to entering an invalid digit as `O` and `0` can easily be mistyped. I have also tried to enter random VRM into the tablet and it accepts that number so it was also mentioned on the appeal that their system accepts any number entered and does not notify if the number is invalid or wrong.

@Coupon-mad no the new list does not include any entry or part-matching of VRM. Therefore I had attached the picture `parking registered` within my appeal to POPLA to show that their system is faulty as it did provide confirmation but its not in their system.    

Gr1pr

helpindeed said:

@Car1980 At the time of the of making the first appeal the keeper didn't knew why the parking fine was issued, so it was assumed that it must have been due to entering an invalid digit as `O` and `0` can easily be mistyped. I have also tried to enter random VRM into the tablet and it accepts that number so it was also mentioned on the appeal that their system accepts any number entered and does not notify if the number is invalid or wrong.

@Coupon-mad no the new list does not include any entry or part-matching of VRM. Therefore I had attached the picture `parking registered` within my appeal to POPLA to show that their system is faulty as it did provide confirmation but its not in their system.    

The NTK PCN letter stated the contravention from their point of view 

Contravention  , -  No valid pay and display/permit was purchased 

So their systems haven't found a valid payment for the VRM captured by ANPR , hence why they issued the PCN

But its well known that ANPR is inaccurate and their payment machines aren't 100% accurate either,  as has been pointed out 

What the keeper didn't or doesn't know is the reason why it failed,  so assumptions were made,  valid assumptions but not necessarily factual 

So we know the effect,  but are all assuming what the actual cause was,  with the cards being biased in their favour,  as usual 

Coupon-mad

In your POPLA comments, I'd concentrate on reiterating the issue with the signs in the car park which are silent about the keypad, therefore there was no breach of a term on the main t&cs signs.

helpindeed

@Coupon-mad Thank you so much for your help. The appeal got accepted by POPLA. Took them time but, decisions was received yesterday.