ECP POPLA appeal almost ready to submit - which grounds of appeal are irrelevant?

Hello all,

After searching the boards a ton, I've now drafted and redrafted my POPLA appeal against Euro Car Parks and I'm just about ready to submit it, but I wanted to check that I've not included a load of irrelevant sections.

I based the appeal on the templates in the Newbies section, as well as on one of the very long examples linked to from there, though that was a Parking Eye example. As a result, I'm not sure if everything is relevant to this case.

With all my pictures, it's 26 pages long! (And that's single-spaced, size 12 font, 2cm borders.) Don't worry - I'm not going to post it here.

Context:

The driver parked in a Wetherspoons car park, where they've been parking on a weekly basis for the past three years. Over that time, the parking rules were 90 minutes free, and if you overstayed you could just pay for the extra time at the machine.

At some point over the summer, ECP changed the charges (I asked when this happened in my initial appeal, but they didn't respond to that in their form rejection letter), but did not put up any signs to make it clear. The whole duration of the driver's stay (around 80 minutes) was therefore against the new rules.

From browsing online, it seems that a lot of other people have caught out by this: the first thing they knew about the changes in charges was receiving a NtK, as was the case here.

So my main point of appeal is the lack of signage making it clear that there has been a change in charges, but I've gone overboard with other areas because I'm concerned that the BPA only recommends temporary signs as "best practice" rather than stating "you need to do this" - do I have grounds to call ECP's practice a "breach" of the BPA CoP?

The BPA code of practice states, ‘Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.’

The following are the (many) grounds of appeal. I'm baffled by some of them, but especially by #5 - based on the limited info here, is that relevant to ECP?

Thanks massively for any advice or suggestions.


1. Recent changes to the parking charges have not been indicated by signs nor have drivers been alerted in any other way – a breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

4. There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

5. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA Code of Practice breach

6. No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

7. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

8. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

9. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

10. No Planning Permission from Sheffield City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage