ECP Appeal Rejected after following MSE Advice

As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a copy of the landowner contract. I have reviewed this and I am satisfied that it complies with the BPA Code of Practice and the operator had authority to act on the land on the day in question. The appellant says that the ANPR system is unreliable and is neither synchronised nor accurate. In response to this the operator have advised that their technical team visit the site regularly and monitor camera alignment and all on site equipment, back office systems are monitored 24 hours a day. They also advise that all equipment is fully tested before site installation, and fully tested for a number of weeks prior to them going live. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate.



The appellant says that the operator have used Fairlie vs Fenton 1870 incorrectly. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. The appellant has not stated why this affects the driver’s ability to comply with the terms and conditions. I am therefore satisfied that this does not have a material effect on my decision. The appellant says that there is a lack of signage which is unclear. The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park.

The appellant says that the charge is punitive. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” The Supreme Court also concluded in response to the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 saying, “In our opinion, the same considerations which show that the £85 charge is not a penalty, demonstrate that it is not unfair for the purpose of the Regulations.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £90; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the appellant’s vehicle has been on site exceeding the maximum time allowed, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Never mind! That is all template guff, by the way...

So Coupon-mad - thanks so much for all your help so far and support - so what is the next advice now -just ignore any spurrious "collection" letters from ECP ?

@Coupon-mad - Interestingly, I just did a Google search on ECP & Burley Developments (the landowner) at Church Farm, Stockton Heath. In relation to planning permission application from ECP on the site from 2011 and it says that the ANPR is "
The site is the car park for Church Farm Retail Park which has a number of retail shops and
restaurants around the car park. The site is managed by
Burley Development Group. The ANPR will be used to monitor any entry and exit to the site. This information will be used to see the flow of traffic within the car park and allow retailers to identify busy shopping periods.
It will also be used as a security measure to monitor vehicle registrations"