Euro Car Parks at Milton Keynes, POPLA unsuccessful

Gerry89

Hi, I read the newbies thread and actually I was able to get rid of one PCN from another company, but this one was unsuccesfull in POPLA:

I understand that my next step is to wait for a court order? I havent been able to contact the landowner I can seem to find the CBRE email to bother them, and Next and Costa (this are the places I was an actual customer) keep telling me to contact Euro Car Parks.

Anyway, one of the passenger were 34 weeks pregnant during this visit and popla didnt even care this was their decision

"

DecisionUnsuccessful Assessor NameL*** L** Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for overstaying the maximum time period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • Failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • Inadequate and Obstructive Signage (BPA CoP 18.2 & 18.3). • Mandatory Grace & Consideration Periods. • The Equality Act 2010 – Reasonable Adjustment. • Evidence of Genuine Patronage. • No Evidence of Landowner Authority. • Failure to Prove ANPR Accuracy and Data Compliance. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. Images of the signage x 4 2. Proof of purchases on site x 2 3. Image of the front and back of the PCN x 2 4. Medical evidence. 5. Full appeal details. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £90 PCN will be issued to drivers who overstay the maximum time period allowed. • Failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper. I have reviewed the PCN, and I am satisfied this meets the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 therefore, I am considering the registered keeper’s liability for the PCN. • Inadequate and Obstructive Signage (BPA CoP 18.2 & 18.3). I note the appellant has made reference to The British Parking Association Code of Practice, however I will refer to The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (The Code) as this is the relevant Code for the parking event. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The operator has provided POPLA with images of the signs in situ. I can see that there are several signs throughout the site and therefore, due to the layout of these signs I am satisfied the signs were unambiguous, easy to see, read and understand and the operator has met section and 3.1.3 requirements. Section 3.1.6 of the Single Code of Practice states that signs should be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions, including during dusk and in the dark if the land is accessible at those times. The signs must be installed at a height that takes into account where the signs will be viewed from, and whether vehicle headlights will illuminate the signs in the dark. While I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it and not rely on the staff or business in question to provide them with this information as they are not obligated to do so. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the appellant was afforded this opportunity. • Mandatory Grace & Consideration Periods. Section 5.1 of The Code states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. The note in the document states: “The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining on the controlled land for more than 5 minutes.” The consideration period is not an added period of free time and therefore, in this case a period of 5 minutes is given to motorists to decide whether they wish to stay or leave after reviewing the signs. Once a motorist decides to park at a site the consideration period ends and the parking event contract is formed. Section 5.2 of The Code requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. In this case the motorist has remained on site for 3 hours and 18 minutes which exceeds the maximum stay by 18 minutes. If the grace period had been applied the parking time would still result in an overstay of 8 minutes and as such I am satisfied the operator has issued the PCN correctly. • The Equality Act 2010 – Reasonable Adjustment. The appellant has raised the Equality Act, and that reasonable adjustments should be made. I fully appreciate that pregnancy is a protected characteristic under the Act, and I recognise the importance of this and the evidence provided. However, this protection does not create an exemption from the parking terms and conditions that are displayed at this site. All motorists are required to follow the same requirements, such as not exceeding the maximum stay. I feel it is important to highlight that POPLA’s role is to assess whether the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said car park, and the relevant Code of Practice. POPLA is not a body that can determine issues of discrimination law or assess whether reasonable adjustments should have been made; these matters fall outside of our remit and cannot be determined through this process. • Evidence of Genuine Patronage. I appreciate the evidence provided by the appellant and do not doubt they were legitimate users of the site, however, this does not exempt any motorist from adhering to the terms and conditions of the site. • No Evidence of Landowner Authority. Although The Code outlines what authorisation must be set out, my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. • Failure to Prove ANPR Accuracy and Data Compliance. The site in questions operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. ANPR cameras capture vehicles entering and exiting the car park to calculate the time a vehicle has remained onsite. The operator has provided evidence of the system record of registered vehicles. This record shows the images captured by the ANPR cameras of vehicles entering and exiting the car park, and provides a time and date for this, to calculate the total stay a vehicle may remain in the car park. Studies have shown ANPR technology to be generally dependable. POPLA will occasionally receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been a fault with the ANPR. When considering these appeals, POPLA must first consider if there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy of the ANPR system. The evidence can be provided from both the appellant and the operator. The operator provides evidence of the images, supporting its version of events. The appellant would then provide evidence or a version of events casting doubt on the validity of the ANPR technology. Our role is to then judge if the evidence is adequate enough to show the technology was not working on the date in question. In this case, whilst I recognise the appellant’s evidence, they have not provided enough sufficient evidence or an adequate explanation as to why they feel the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist overstayed the maximum time period allowed Failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 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. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly."

I can attached my appeal, if you need, but I want to understand how do I proceed I dont want to pay when we actually were having a coffee and when we were leaving a pregnant lady had to pee.

Thanks for all the info in the newbies thread love people gets together to stop this abusive system!

Cheers

Jame4ters

Don’t worry about POPLA. It’s not a surprise and it’s not binding on you.

Don’t pay.

Don’t worry about the letters you will start to receive that “threaten” you with all sorts of things

Keep opening your post.

Follow the steps in the “Newbies” thread.

Have you told them who the driver was?