Euro Car Parks Rejection

Fruitcake wrote: »

If your initial appeal was made in your name as day to day keeper, then your employer should never see anything. Did you give away the driver's identity in your initial appeal? I hope not.

No, I took the advice from the newbie post and did it as the "registered keeper" My boss wont actually throw a wobbler, I can handle him really, just would prefer not to receive debt letters.

Thanks for the advice, Im slightly concerned I will make a hash of it and lose the appeal! I shall go back to the newbie post and read up on the appeal process. Thanks again

Yes, appeal made as the company.

Have had a response from ECP via POPLA, 27 pages of blurb and now pics of the driver. Are we likely to lose this? *edited*

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the signage explaining the terms and conditions, as displayed on signs throughout the site. The signage states: “CUSTOMERS ONLY…THIS CAR PARK IS CONTROLLED, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £90 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…MAXIMUM STAY 3 HOURS (07:00 to 21:00)…MAXIMUM STAY 15 MINUTES (21:00 to 07:00)…WE ARE USING CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IMAGES OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES AND CALCULATE THE LENGTH OF STAY BETWEEN ENTRY AND EXIT AT ALL TIMES INCLUDING BANK HOLIDAYS”. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle,, entered the site at 21:03 and exited the site at 21:36 on 22 June 2018. A total stay of 32 minutes. The operator has issued the PCN as the vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum period allowed. As the driver has not been identified within the appeal to POPLA or to the operator, I need to ensure that the operator has shown strict compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with PoFA 2012 and as such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant’s case is that the operator has not allowed the minimum grace period. ANPR systems are used to take images of vehicles entering a site and exiting. The operator then uses the times of these ANPR images to calculate the total duration of stay on site. When motorists use a free car park, they do not need to obtain the free parking period; all they do is park their vehicle on site and agree to comply with the terms and conditions. As the site permits motorists to 15 minutes of free parking time and the signage advises motorists that the images captured at the entry and exit are used to calculate the stay, I am satisfied that the free parking period would begin from the time the vehicle enters the site. Operators are required to allow motorists a minimum grace period of 10 minutes to leave the site after the parking period ends. The appellant entered the site at 21.03, as such; they were required to leave the site at 21:18. The appellant has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence to show why it took a further 17 minutes to leave the car park. I cannot justify extending the minimum grace period of 10 minutes to cover the overstay of 17 minutes. The appellant says the signage is insufficient. I am unable to determine the location of the entrance sign at the site. However, upon reviewing the photographs of the car park that the operator provided and the site map. I determine that the signage placed throughout the car park is conspicuous. Upon reviewing photographs of the signs themselves, I consider them to be legible and written in intelligible language. As such, the signage is sufficient to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions. I cannot assess the appeal in comparison with the actions of other motorists. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the driver was in unable to understand the terms and conditions of the site or felt that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining on the car park, the driver agreed to the terms and conditions displayed throughout the car park. The appellant has accused the operator of poor system implementation and maintenance. When considering such grounds of appeal, I look to see if the operator or the appellant has provided any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR system’s accuracy. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. On this occasion, the appellant has not provided POPLA with any evidence to suggest that the ANPR system is not accurate. The appellant says there is no evidence of landowner authority. The operator has provided a copy of the contract it agreed with the landowner. The contract confirmed that the operator has the landowner’s authority to enforce the parking restrictions at the site between 4 December 2017 and 5 January 2021. I determine that the operator has demonstrated that it has authority to manage parking at the site and issue PCNs. The appellant says that the photographs of the PCN issued are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice states when issuing PCNs, operators “may” use photographs to demonstrate how the vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. As such, they are not required to use photographs to show how the vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The operator has provided timestamped images of the vehicle entering and exiting the site within its evidence pack. I am satisfied that these images demonstrate that the appellant’s vehicle did enter and exit the site at the times stated on the PCN. After assessing the appeal and the evidence provided, I conclude that the driver breached the terms and conditions of the site by staying longer than the maximum stay allowed. As the operator has issued the PCN correctly and used POFA 2012 to transfer liability of the PCN to the registered keeper, I must refuse this appeal.