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
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 11th Feb 18, 9:02 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 2Thanks
    MISSY_me
    Euro Car Park PCN at Shorne Woods Country Parks -
    • #1
    • 11th Feb 18, 9:02 PM
    Euro Car Park PCN at Shorne Woods Country Parks - 11th Feb 18 at 9:02 PM
    In the middle of January, my family decided to go to the Shorne Woods Country Parks - Gravesend. But by the time we got there it was already 3; 30 pm. and is getting cold and dark. We drove into the car park and was wondering shall we stay or go back home. Without me and the kids leaving the car my husband spotted some friends and spend some time talking to them and in a while, we went back home, Anyway a week after a received a PCN by post from Euro car park with a picture of the vehicle`s plates and inserted day and time. Breach of terms and Conditions stated is No valid pay and display /[ermit was purchased. Ok, but actually we didn`t park the car and left it unattended. They said we were staying there 45 minutes, but they were in the car. Please, advice, I read so much in this forum and I got a bit confused. Do I have any chance to appeal? Thanks
Page 2
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 6th Mar 18, 2:06 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    I`m sorry Browntoa, I just didn`t see in the NEWBIES template letter for appeal to POPLA, only links, which I thought are relevant to operators different than ECP.I will search again
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 6th Mar 18, 2:16 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    I just read my NTK again. In the left column after the date of issue, i have Time observed 15:35:53 and bellow Issue time: 16:17:03. Does anyone knows what it means and can I used it in my appeal to POPLA? Thanks
    I also saw, they provided a photo on my vehicle of the way out from the park and is quite dark. Can I use this at any point? Thank you all!
    Last edited by MISSY_me; 06-03-2018 at 2:29 PM. Reason: I have additinal queston, but didnt want to make additional post
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 14th Mar 18, 1:05 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    A little update: I contacted the Kent Council, as the landowner of the park, and they write to me, that they agreed with ECP for issued me a ticket and advised me to apply to POPLA. I thought as a Council Property the land is not "relevant". I,m a bit confused, to be honest!!!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Mar 18, 1:28 PM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,264 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    If the council own it I do not believe it can be relevant land. Certainly councils have been told they CANNOT run car parks using private firms under contract law - it has to be using a PPO.
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 14th Mar 18, 1:36 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    So, you suggest to leave the Council alone and go with POPLA. Also, my NTK has been served 25days after the day of the alleged incident. Is this a good point to stand for. Thank you!
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 14th Mar 18, 1:38 PM
    • 37,391 Posts
    • 84,262 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    A little update: I contacted the Kent Council, as the landowner of the park, and they write to me, that they agreed with ECP for issued me a ticket and advised me to apply to POPLA. I thought as a Council Property the land is not "relevant". I,m a bit confused, to be honest!!!
    Originally posted by MISSY_me
    So appeal to PoPLA using all the relevant template points you will find in post 3 of the NEWBIES, plus Council owned land is Not Relevant Land using the link from the successful appeal you were given earlier.
    Also quote the info here provided by the DfT undersecretary for transport.

    http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=4512.0
    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
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 18th Mar 18, 4:07 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    Hi all, how does it sound my point for NOt Relevant land to you:

    Shorne Woods Country Parks – Gravesend land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “traffic authority” as meaning each of the following:

    (a) the Secretary of State;
    (b) the Welsh Ministers;
    (c) Transport for London;
    (d) the Common Council of the City of London;
    (e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
    (f) a parish or community council;
    (g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

    According to this definition, Kent County Council is, therefore, a "traffic authority".

    Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “parking place” as having the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 i.e. a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any class, may wait.

    Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA states that in this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

    (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
    (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    (c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

    The parking places at Shorne Woods Country Parks, having been provided by Kent County Council (a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4) are therefore not relevant land by virtue of Paragraph 3 (1) (b) of Schedule 4.

    As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
    POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
    ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

    Any comments will be helpful! Thank you
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 5:38 PM
    • 61,573 Posts
    • 74,441 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    from the Airport Authority
    Say what now?
    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.

    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 18th Mar 18, 5:58 PM
    • 687 Posts
    • 1,795 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Shorne Woods Country Parks !!!8211; Gravesend land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    Originally posted by MISSY_me
    There's no need to mention statutory bylaws - in fact it's unlikely that the Country Park is covered by such bylaws. Also, the POPLA case 6062356150 that you quote won't be relevant here because if I remember correctly that related to a site covered by harbour bylaws.

    What counts here is that Kent County Council is a "traffic authority" as defined by POFA and so regardless of whether the land is subject to statutory control, the land is still not relevant land (according to POFA).

    For wording more relevant to Kent Council's Country Parks, check out shaleman's thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5770530&highlight=kent
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 18-03-2018 at 6:01 PM.
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 18th Mar 18, 6:18 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    Say what now?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    Yes, My bad, I will correct it! I took it from another appeal and tried to adjust it to my case.
    Note taken!
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 18th Mar 18, 6:19 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    Thank you Edna, I will edit it now the way you suggest it!
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 18th Mar 18, 6:53 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    This is my last version.

    Kent County Council is a "traffic authority" as defined by POFA and so regardless of whether the land is subject to statutory control, the land is still not relevant land (according to POFA). Shorne Woods Country Parks – Gravesend land is not 'relevant land' and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “traffic authority” as meaning each of the following:

    (a) the Secretary of State;
    (b) the Welsh Ministers;
    (c) Transport for London;
    (d) the Common Council of the City of London;
    (e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
    (f) a parish or community council;
    (g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

    According to this definition, Kent County Council is, therefore, a "traffic authority".

    Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “parking place” as having the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 i.e. a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any class, may wait.

    Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA states that in this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

    (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
    (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    (c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

    The parking places at Shorne Woods Country Parks, having been provided by Kent County Council (a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4) are therefore not relevant land by virtue of Paragraph 3 (1) (b) of Schedule 4. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land.
    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 10th Apr 18, 11:21 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    Hello all. Yesterday I received an reply from POPLA with ECP!!!8217;s evidences. On my point for NOT RELEVENT LAND, they have stated this:
    ECP operate under Kent County Parks - this is NOT part of Kent County Council direct
    management nor under any off street parking orders as required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore it is !!!8220;relevant land!!!8221;. Whilst Kent County Council owns the land in the Kent Country the site is not covered by any off street parking orders as would be required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore does not fall under relevant land.

    On my point for late served NTK, their answer is:

    Our PCN (Parking Charge Notice) is the first communication with the registered keeper !!!8211; this is referred to as the Notice to Keeper or Notice to Owner
    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 Gladstones 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.

    Now I have to submit my comments. Do I still have a chance to win this appeal? Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 18, 11:45 PM
    • 61,573 Posts
    • 74,441 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Now I have to submit my comments. Do I still have a chance to win this appeal?
    Yes. Keep it snappy, in bullet points as you only have 2000 characters, not words!

    - mention any of their old/undated signage photos, too old to show the signs on the day

    - mention a lack of an aerial view of signs, or if there is one in the pack, point out if it is undated/unsigned and the little flags or dots are simply dots on a streetview image and no evidence of the signs on the day.

    - mention any issue with the landowner contract (date signed/no date of expiry?)

    - state that the POFA's definition of 'relevant land' is silent on TROs and the RTA. Any Council-owned land is NOT privately owned and not 'relevant land' which has the express meaning:
    ''any land...other than:
    (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense...
    (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    (c) any land not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control''.
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Apr 18, 12:02 AM
    • 9,238 Posts
    • 9,447 Thanks
    KeithP
    They say:
    ECP operate under Kent County Parks - this is NOT part of Kent County Council direct management nor under any off street parking orders as required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore it is 'relevant land'.
    ...and then say:
    Whilst Kent County Council owns the land in the Kent Country the site is not covered by any off street parking orders as would be required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore does not fall under relevant land.
    Is it relevant land or not? Clearly ECP don't know.

    As C-M says, it is not relevant land within the meaning defined in PoFA2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 3.

    I would consider using the second of ECP's quotes here... pointing out to PoPLA that ECP clearly agree with you that the land where your vehicle was parked is not relevant land.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 18, 12:10 AM
    • 61,573 Posts
    • 74,441 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good spot!
    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.

    • MISSY_me
    • By MISSY_me 12th Apr 18, 3:00 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MISSY_me
    Thank you, all! What about for the late served NTK? It came late, and ECP are withdrawing the attention to the form of the NTK, but my point is that it never been served on time.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Apr 18, 3:10 PM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,264 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, you also include that even IF it was relevant land, the NtK was served too late to hold the Keeper liable.
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

461Posts Today

3,983Users online

Martin's Twitter