Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • nic66
    • By nic66 16th Dec 17, 1:47 AM
    • 12Posts
    • 14Thanks
    nic66
    PCN on lease car
    • #1
    • 16th Dec 17, 1:47 AM
    PCN on lease car 16th Dec 17 at 1:47 AM
    I've read all the newbie threads and as many links as I can but the legalese is confusing me.

    The lease company have forwarded a PCN from Euro Car Parks stating that my car was parked in Matalan for longer than the permitted 2 hrs, from 21.40 at until just after midnight. The shop would have been closed.

    My query is that the event occurred 11.11.17 and the letter to the lease company was dated 7.12.17 and received 13.12.17. The lease company replied and sent details to me 13.12.17.

    The lease company have written back to ECP re: Notice to Driver, asking them to address all correspondence to me They also give my details and refer to me as the driver, even though they don't actually know who the driver was. They make no mention of sending any documents to ECP.

    As there is more than 14 days between the event and the PCN letter, do I use Edna Basher's letter now? Or do I give ECP 28 days to obtain the required 3 documents from the lease company? And if they do obtain them do I then wait 21 days for them to contact me before appealing?

    Any help and advice appreciated. Thanks
    Last edited by nic66; 16-12-2017 at 12:03 PM. Reason: advice received to edit post
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 16th Dec 17, 9:13 AM
    • 35,556 Posts
    • 19,760 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 16th Dec 17, 9:13 AM
    • #2
    • 16th Dec 17, 9:13 AM
    I'd you have read the newbies FAQ thread then you will have seen the advice to never reveal who was driving

    You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

    The FAQ covers leased cars. Now the lease company have passed on your details then follow the appeal advice in the FAQ where there are links for leased car appeals.


    Appeal as keeper and don't reveal who was driving
    Last edited by Quentin; 16-12-2017 at 9:23 AM.
    • nic66
    • By nic66 16th Dec 17, 6:28 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    • #3
    • 16th Dec 17, 6:28 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Dec 17, 6:28 PM
    Thanks Quentin

    I didn't think that I had identified myself as the driver but I've edited the post to hopefully remove any doubt.

    Is anyone able to answer the queries in my final paragraph relating to timescales?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Dec 17, 6:51 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 16th Dec 17, 6:51 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Dec 17, 6:51 PM
    The lease company have written back to ECP re: Notice to Driver, asking them to address all correspondence to me They also give my details and refer to me as the driver, even though they don't actually know who the driver was. They make no mention of sending any documents to ECP.

    As there is more than 14 days between the event and the PCN letter, do I use Edna Basher's letter now?
    No, definitely wait till you get your own PCN in the post, which should be a NTH within 21 days of them receiving your details as hirer.

    Or do I give ECP 28 days to obtain the required 3 documents from the lease company? And if they do obtain them do I then wait 21 days for them to contact me before appealing?
    They won't get the required documents, don't worry.

    The only thing to beware is if this leased car is a company car, you now need to add something to tell POPLA to think again if they are about to engage their new shiny template 'let's-throw-out-this-appeal' decision paragraph, that's shown in the POPLA Decisions thread only last week, posted by Edna Basher. The one where POPLA have been persuaded (guess who by, one wonders - cough - BPA?) to find that any person driving a company car is ALWAYS on company business, whether the PPC argues CPS v AJH Films or not (and in Edna Basher's firm's case, the driver wasn't even their employee!). Shocking.

    So company car, or private lease?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-12-2017 at 6:54 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nic66
    • By nic66 16th Dec 17, 6:58 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    • #5
    • 16th Dec 17, 6:58 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Dec 17, 6:58 PM
    Thanks Coupon-mad, that's really helpful.

    it's an nhs lease car via a fleet management company and due to go back next month.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Dec 17, 7:17 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 16th Dec 17, 7:17 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Dec 17, 7:17 PM
    So she works for the NHS?

    She will need a new paragraph in the POPLA appeal then, stating that (off the top of my head):

    The driver will not be named, has not been identified as an employee (or not) of the car owner, and POPLA will not be entitled to make any finding that an unidentified driver of a leased car was driving 'on behalf of' any other body.

    To be clear, beloved POPLA Assessor:

    This is NOT a company vehicle provided to one of the drivers only, for the purposes of carrying out their duties only, and nor are the potential authorised drivers all employees of the car owner. This is certainly not a parking event that can be twisted by the operator, or POPLA for that matter, to be argued as 'carrying out duties' - at midnight!

    As such, POPLA must consider a failure to follow PoFA 2012 as relevant to the present reasoning, and must find that a lack of hirer documentation is a failure to invoke hirer liability.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-12-2017 at 7:24 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nic66
    • By nic66 16th Dec 17, 7:23 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    • #7
    • 16th Dec 17, 7:23 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Dec 17, 7:23 PM
    Blimey this legal stuff is complicated. I'll wait for the NTH then and take it from there. Thanks for your replies
    • nic66
    • By nic66 6th Feb 18, 3:41 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    • #8
    • 6th Feb 18, 3:41 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Feb 18, 3:41 PM
    So I appealed online using Edna Basher's letter and Coupon-mad's additions and this is their reply:

    Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
    - The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) – cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay.
    - Parking at the above site is limited to 2 hours.
    - On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked.
    - Your vehicle was parked longer than 2 hours, therefore the notice was issued correctly and remains payable.

    Please make payment of £85.00 by visiting our website. Please note there is a £1.50 Admin charge for all payments. Alternatively make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (to include a £2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque. Payment can also be made using our automated telephone service on 0203 553 4559. This amount is now due and the charge will be held for 14 days to allow time to make the payment. If payment is not received within this time further charges will apply.

    You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

    You can make an appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) within 28 days online with the following reference number xxx. Alternatively, if you wish to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service by post a copy of the appeal application can be sent at your request. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate will be at an end. If you opt to pay the parking charge notice you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

    It's like they haven't even read the appeal! Do I just send the appeal info again to POPLA and keep my fingers crossed or do I have to specify why they haven't met POFA's requirements?

    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 10:45 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 6th Feb 18, 10:45 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Feb 18, 10:45 PM
    Do I just send the appeal info again to POPLA and keep my fingers crossed or do I have to specify why they haven't met POFA's requirements?
    The latter. Plus the usual template points from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. A looong appeal!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nic66
    • By nic66 6th Feb 18, 11:56 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    Thank you Coupon-mad. I've just spent an hour reading the newbies thread again and lots of forum posts so I'll draft a PoPLA appeal and then will probably need your advice again.
    I've also checked the local council website for planning permission for the signs and cameras and can't find anything - is that relevant to the PoPLA appeal? Is it worth finding out who the landowner is?
    Thanks again
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Feb 18, 12:08 AM
    • 36,621 Posts
    • 82,942 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Thank you Coupon-mad. I've just spent an hour reading the newbies thread again and lots of forum posts so I'll draft a PoPLA appeal and then will probably need your advice again.
    I've also checked the local council website for planning permission for the signs and cameras and can't find anything - is that relevant to the PoPLA appeal? Is it worth finding out who the landowner is?
    Thanks again
    Originally posted by nic66

    The lack of planning/advertising consent won't get you anywhere with PoPLA, but in my opinion should always be included. It adds fuel to the fire that the unregulated private parking industry BPA, IPC, PoPLA, IAS et al are not fit for purpose.
    You should complain to the BPA that the extra £1.50 charges are now outlawed.

    You should also complain to your MP, quoting the following comments made by MPs concerning the unregulated parking industry during last Fridays parliamentary session.

    Cowboy companies, signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued, rogue parking companies, bloodsuckers, absolute disgrace, rogue operators, unfair charges and notices, wilfully misleading, signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead, unreasonable, designed to trap innocent drivers, a curse, harassing, operating in a disgusting way, appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing, loathed, outrageous scam, dodgy practice, outrageous abuse, unscrupulous practices, the BPA is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 07-02-2018 at 12:15 AM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • nic66
    • By nic66 7th Feb 18, 12:20 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    Thanks Fruitcake, is the admin fee instead of the credit card fee and therefore the same thing? I'll add those 2 complaints to my list
    • nic66
    • By nic66 13th Mar 18, 5:51 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    Popla
    So I sent this POPLA appeal below. I didn't get it checked on here as I ran out of time to submit it but I read every thread and reply and did the best I could at the time.

    I included photos taken at night, at a similar time to when the incident occurred, to show that there were only signs on one entrance (there are 2 separate entrances on different roads) and the signs within the the carpark were in darkness. I also pointed put that they were late in issuing the initial Notice to Keeper (although they have now supplied a copy of the initial PCN to the lease company that I was unaware of) and that they hadn't obtained the appropriate documents from the lease company (they've now supplied a copy of my signed lease application).

    The POPLA reply received today states I have 7 days to respond. ECP have submitted their documentation as per next post


    POPLA APPEAL:
    As the registered keeper of the above vehicle at the time of the PCN, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks (ECP) issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1. Failure to comply with the strict requirements of POFA
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3. 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
    4. BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.
    5. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.


    1. Failure to comply with the strict requirements of POFA

    In the case of a PCN issued in respect of a hire vehicle, in order to have the right to use the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must:

    1) deliver a Notice to Keeper to the vehicle-hire firm in full compliance with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 or 9 (as the case may be);

    ECP issued notice to keeper 7.12.17, 25 days after the event on 11.11.17

    2) be provided with the documents specified under POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 (2) and;

    These have not been received

    3) deliver a Notice to Hirer to the vehicle's hirer in full compliance with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14.



    POPLA has promised that my case will be independently reviewed by one of its professional assessors taking into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice. The requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA are quite straightforward for any reasonable professional to understand and I expect that all POPLA assessors shall have a clear understanding of this particular piece of relevant law. It should therefore be very obvious to POPLA that ECP has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA.

    The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, POFA; the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the Hirer liable for the charge are set out in Paragraph 14.

    Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). ECPL did not provide us with a copy of any of these documents.

    Further, ECP's Notice to Hirer did not comply with the requirements of Paragraph 14(5) including:

    Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(a), ECP's PCN to me did not inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the Notice to Keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
    Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(b), ECP's PCN to me did not refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper; Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(c), ECP's PCN to me did not warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under Paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

    POPLA must not attempt to presume that the hirer is appealing this PCN on behalf of the driver. For the avoidance of doubt, I am simply exercising my right as hirer to appeal this PCN in my own name in exactly the same way as any other vehicle keeper or hirer is entitled to do

    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    3. 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

    These photos were taken at 21:14 hrs. There are 2 entrances to this car park. The sign on W. Road entry, shown below, is not visible whilst driving at night as it is too small and not illuminated.



    The signage within the carpark is not visible at all during the night time hours and there are not enough signs in all areas of the car park. There are no lights and photos are only illuminated by the flash on the camera.


    The signs by Matalan shop entrance are no use after 8pm as the shop is closed so no one would see them.

    There are no signs at all on the C. Road entrance


    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    link:

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    link:

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park there other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    link:

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    link:

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2!!!8221; letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3!!!8221; or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    link:

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    link:

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


    4. BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.

    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

    The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp on the photographs nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).

    The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the photographs. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

    5. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

    Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside the car park.

    It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.

    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

    This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

    .legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

    Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
    (a) the commercial practice omits material information,

    (b) the commercial practice hides material information,

    (c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

    (d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,

    and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''

    It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.


    Given the above I request that the PCN issued to me by ECP be cancelled
    • nic66
    • By nic66 13th Mar 18, 6:12 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    So I could really do with some advice on how to respond to the POPLA response received today please, with ECP response/'evidence' which includes:

    1. copies of the PCN letters showing 'liabilty trail' with the following:
    Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on the 11/11/2017 (date of event). As the car park is camera controlled the vehicle details were forwarded to the DVLA to obtain the registered
    keepers details. The DVLA had provided the following details as the registered keeper.....
    On 01/12/2017 the Registered Keeper informed us that the vehicle was on lease and therefore ECP has followed the process and re-issued the PCN to the address below....
    Then on 18/12/2017 the Fleet Management has informed us on behalf of NHS that the vehicle is on a long term lease to Mrs XX, again ECP has followed the process and re-issued tie PCN to the address below....
    Mrs XX then appealed the PCN and did not confirm to be the driver on the day in question, however she confirmed to be the hirer of the vehicle. Therefore the liability of the notice remains with Mrs XX as the hirer.
    The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by both the BPA and the IPC and we have confirmation that our PCN (NTK/NTO) and has been approved as compliant with POFA
    The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by Gladstone!!!8217;s Solicitors who specialise in assisting private car park operators !!!8211; legal advice and pre legal advice with regards signage and adhering
    to POFA and both code of practice.
    Please be advised once the registered keeper has been sent the PCN (NTK/NTO) if there is no response, payment, appeal, serviceable address of the driver !!!8211; ECP process a Notice To Keeper !!!8211; this is a !!!8220;reminder letter!!!8221; and sent in reference to the PCN (NTK/NTO) that has not been responded to.
    If we are in receipt of a serviceable address of the driver !!!8211; the PCN (NTK/NTO) is re-issued
    If the registered keeper is in receipt of the PCN (NTK/NTO) and has passed to the driver and the driver
    appeals !!!8211; we will respond to the appeal strictly following the code and ensure any/all communication is
    sent to the driver (we would not at this stage re-issue the PCN)
    We have been advised that the above is standard practice for all private car park operators in regards
    to PCN (NTK/NTO) issued on Automatic Number Plate Recognition car parks.

    So I'm not sure if my claim about their timing of letters and NTK not being POFA compliant still stands?

    2. They also present copies of the signed lease application which documents monthly cost, agreed mileage, tax implications and early termination charges, the last paragraph states: I agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the scheme which I have read.

    Does this count as POFA Schedule 4, 13 (2) (c)?

    13 (3) (a) states that it must: contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;
    So I'm hoping that my claim on this point still stands?

    3. Copy of my appeal to ECP and their subsequent rejection

    4. ECP response to POPLA:
    This location is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which takes a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, these pictures are timed and therefore
    the duration of the stay can be calculated. All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration
    numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced. After requesting vehicle keeper details from the DVLA, a Notice to
    keeper is sent to the keepers of the vehicles on this list. As a consequence at ANPR locations there will be no PCN issued to the windscreen neither will there be photographic evidence of
    the windscreen supplied in operator evidence packs.
    Parking Charge Notice XXX was issued to vehicle XXX for breach of terms andonditions A: your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed at Matalan. This car park operates a 24 hour ANPR operation therefore all vehicles are required to
    adhere to the maximum stay of 2 hours onsite.
    In Mrs XX appeal to POPLA she stating the following;
    !!!61623; Failure to comply with the strict requirements of POFA
    !!!61623; No evidence of Landowner Authority
    !!!61623; 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
    !!!61623; BPA Code of Practise - further non-compliance

    In relation on the points raised by Mrs XX appeal to POPLA I can confirm the following
    !!!61623; Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the terms and conditions as stated
    !!!61623; The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, all drivers are required to adhere to the 2 hours maximum stay
    !!!61623; Signage is visble when entering and inside of the car park and when entering private land it would be Mrs XX!!!8217;s responsibilty to read the terms and conditions and adhere to them.
    !!!61623; The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage.
    !!!61623; This signage quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a parking charge notice (PCN) will be issued.
    !!!61623; On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).
    !!!61623; As the car park is camera controlled it is imperative that all extenuating circumstances are reported at the time of the event
    !!!61623; Any form of parking ticket or !!!8216;notice!!!8217; is issued under the law !!!8216;of trespass and Contract Law!!!8217;. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.
    !!!61623; The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges are that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms !!!8722; for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable.
    !!!61623; With regards to the reference to !!!8220;Pre-Estimate of Loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999.!!!8221; Please be advised that the Supreme Court has made judgement (04/11/15) that clearly sets
    out the issue of parking charge notices on private land (law of contract applies) and in particular pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge notice is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest when the driver failed to adhere to the terms and conditions and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable
    penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. - It!!!8217;s the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to check the signage prior to leaving the vehicle on site.
    C1 MB
    - Contract Law Applies
    !!!61623; Figure 1 shows the entry and exit of Mrs XX vehicle.
    !!!61623; Figure 2 - the signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking !!!8211; all drivers are required to adhere to the maximum stay on site at Matalan - Chesterfield. Please be advised this is a customer only car park.
    !!!61623; Figure 3 is where I can confirm our PCN is POFA compliant.
    !!!61623; Figure 4 is the agreement between Matalan and Euro Car Parks to manage the car park.
    The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, it clearly states it is a camera controlled car park with 2 hours free parking.
    Vehicle XXXentered the car park at 21:38 and exited at 00:13; a total duration of 2 hours and 35 minutes therefore Euro Car Parks assets that the parking charge notice was issued correctly and should remain payable

    5. photos of my car entering and leaving (although the number plate is invisible on entry photo, semi-visible on exit photo and still has the separate small photos of the number plate)

    6. A weird blank sample of a PCN

    7. BPA code of practice with signed agreement from Matalan authorising ECP to carry out parking enforcement, dated 24.4.17

    8. Numerous photos of the site and signage taken in daylight hours. 4 photos taken 19.2.18 at 19:36 hrs showing the signs to be illuminated

    However the incident took place at 21:38 hrs and my photos were taken at 21:03 hrs showing that the signs were not illuminated, in fact the lights are all off in the carpark at that time of night There is definitely no signage at all on one of the two entry points to the carpark so I'm hoping that this point will still stand
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Mar 18, 1:30 AM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The POPLA reply received today states I have 7 days to respond. ECP have submitted their documentation as per next post
    OK so you are at 'comments' stage. EXACTLY like this one, same retailer and parking firm:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5772387

    In your case, remind POPLA re the POFA and why there is no hirer liability (no documents with PCN).

    And this is also a very good second point to push home to POPLA now:
    8. Numerous photos of the site and signage taken in daylight hours. 4 photos taken 19.2.18 at 19:36 hrs showing the signs to be illuminated

    However the incident took place at 21:38 hrs and my photos were taken at 21:03 hrs showing that the signs were not illuminated, in fact the lights are all off in the carpark at that time of night There is definitely no signage at all on one of the two entry points to the carpark so I'm hoping that this point will still stand
    Also add a line about the Matalan contract if it's not clear if it continues unto perpetuity (POPLA's own word, use it and they might take the bait and run with that).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nic66
    • By nic66 16th Apr 18, 11:14 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    Decision: Successful
    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name:
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant!!!8217;s case is that the operator has not complied with the requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant has advised that the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has advice that the signage fail to advise drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for, in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that the photographs provided by the operator fail to meet the requirementsof the BPA Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the hirer of the vehicle, as they have not been identified as the driver. Accordingly, the provisions laid out in PoFA 2012 will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states, !!!8220;The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle!!!8221;. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that !!!8220;the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given !!!8211; (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Following from this, it states under Section 14 (2) that: !!!8220; The conditions are that !!!8211; (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub paragraph (5) (a !!!8220;notice to hirer!!!8221, together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13 (2) and the notice to keeper.!!!8221;
    From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to the hire company, followed by a further notice to keeper to the hirer. I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it provided the relevant documents to the hirer. From the evidence provided to me, the operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with section 13 and section 14 of PoFA 2012, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. While I note the appellant has advised further grounds for appeal as I have allowed this appeal these require no further consideration.

    Thank you so much for your help with this, especially Coupon-Mad and Edna Basher. I would not have been able to begin to pursue this, never mind successfully appeal, without the fantastic support and advice found on this forum
    Last edited by nic66; 16-04-2018 at 11:17 PM. Reason: pressed enter too soon
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 11:27 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hooray, well done for following all the advice and beating the scam ticket!

    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

420Posts Today

4,985Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin