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
    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 22nd Feb 18, 4:48 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 19Thanks
    3shirts
    POPLA appeal against ECP - NTK and unlit signage
    • #1
    • 22nd Feb 18, 4:48 PM
    POPLA appeal against ECP - NTK and unlit signage 22nd Feb 18 at 4:48 PM
    Here is my appeal letter to POPLA:

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from Euro Car Parks on the following points:
    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible at night from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.
    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:
    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if
    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;
    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    3. 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

    4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible at night from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    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.
    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.
    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, there is just one sign which is neither lit specifically nor illuminated adequately by environmental lighting. It is unremarkable and the wording is mostly illegible without direct light or daylight, especially with the blue font on yellow 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 simply cannot be read without direct lighting. 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 where 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. I put the operator to strict proof as to the visibility of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
    Without use of a torch or other light source aimed directly at the terms, which are also in small and unclear text, they are simply illegible.

    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 an illuminated 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 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 and during full daylight. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car at night before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 18, 10:50 PM
    • 57,392 Posts
    • 70,997 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 22nd Feb 18, 10:50 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Feb 18, 10:50 PM
    Looks like the usual stuff, good research so far.

    We don't know about what happened or whether you have tried complaining to the retailer, or whether this is just a few minutes 'overstay' (grace periods would apply, and make an extra appeal point, if so) or whether it was dark and you can add an extra point, that the photo evidence does not place the car at any recognisable site, and as POPLA is an evidence-based service, the PCN must fail.
    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.

    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 28th Feb 18, 5:48 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    • #3
    • 28th Feb 18, 5:48 PM
    • #3
    • 28th Feb 18, 5:48 PM
    Hi,
    So today ECP have uploaded their 'evidence' to POPLA.

    My main points of defence are that they do not know the driver, I am just the keeper, and that the signs are not visible in the dark.

    They said:
    [ME] appeal to POPLA he stated the following:
    - The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not PoFA compliant
    - No evidence of Landowner Authority
    - The Signage is not clear
    Euro Car Parks would like to respond to the points raised with the following:
    - Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association's (BPA) code of practice explains that signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to
    see, read and understand. Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the driver's responsibility to read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the terms and conditions as stated. Euro Car Parks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant remained at the site for 3 hours and 40 minutes (Figure 1)

    - The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, all drivers are required to
    purchase a valid pay and display ticket for the duration of their stay. Euro Car Parks can confirm
    that the signage on site clearly dispalys the tariff at [LOCATION] (Figure 2)

    - Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the drivers responsibility to
    read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the terms and conditions as
    stated

    - The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, all drivers are required to
    purchase a valid pay and display ticket for the duration of their stay.

    - Signage is visble when entering and inside of the car park and when entering private land it
    would be [ME]'s responsibilty to read the terms and conditions and adhere to them.

    - As mentioned before it is [ME]'s responsibility to read and adhere to the terms and conditions displayed.

    - Figure 3 is a transaction made matching the vehicle registration [REG] where I can confirm that the pay and display ticket purchased did not cover the full duration of parking on site according to the clearly displayed tariff.

    - There is one machine on site as well as the option to Pay By Phone.

    - Euro Car Parks can confirm that the notice has been issued under contract law - the signage on site is clear and when parking on private land it is the responsibility of the driver to read aforementioned signage and park in accordance with the T&CS displayed.

    - The terms and conditions of parking are clearly displayed on the signage (including the charge payable should a breach of terms and conditions occur). If the driver did not agree with these conditions they would have had the option to leave site and seek alternative parking.

    - According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 car park operators should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before enforcement action is taken. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted; the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. I can confirm that
    Euro Car Parks have given [ME] the suitable grace period of 10 minutes

    - The signage is clear in its intent and because of this the notice has been issued correctly and should remain payable.
    C1 MB

    - With regards to the reference to - Pre-Estimate of Loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999. 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.

    - Any form of parking ticket or notice is issued under the law of trespass and Contract Law. 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.

    - 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 for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable.

    - Euro Car Parks only operates locations which are situated on private land, are not council owned and that Euro Car Parks has written authority to operate and issue parking charge notices on all of our locations from the landowner

    - It must also be noted that any person who makes contract his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between Euro Car Parks and the motorist will be enforceable by Euro Car Parks
    as a party to that contract

    - Figure 4 is where I can confirm our PCN is POFA compliant.
    - Euro Car Parks do not operate CCTV
    - Figure 5 is the authority given by Adara Group to manage the car park.
    - The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) does not alter the principle of driver liability.
    What it does do, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges when the landowner or their agent, the parking operator does not know who the driver was at the time.
    By parking on site the driver has accepted the terms and conditions as displayed on the signage and a contract is in place between the diver and ECP that has been breached by the driver failing to purchase a display a valid ticket to cover the entire duration of stay.
    As no pay and display ticket was purchased for the full duration of stay on sire Euro Car Parks asserts that PCN was issued correctly and should remain payable.


    They also included a bunch of photos of the signs (two of them, one by the entrance and one near the pay machine) but all photos are in full daylight which I think just serves to further support the case really.

    How do I proceed. Should I go to the site and take a picture of the sign in the dark to show how illegible it is or is it too late now I've already appealed? It seems I only have a comments box to respond to their evidence. Should I just explain the above, that they still do not have evidence I was the driver and that the signs are only visible in daylight?

    Not sure what I need to do really?

    Thanks
    Last edited by 3shirts; 28-02-2018 at 6:02 PM. Reason: Sorry, the copy paste screwed some formatting up
    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 28th Feb 18, 6:00 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    • #4
    • 28th Feb 18, 6:00 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Feb 18, 6:00 PM
    Looking over this again, they are using my name frequently as being responsible but I was not the driver, just the keeper. I assume that is a key point to make.

    My question really is should I simply enter comments on the POPLA site now that say, essentially, they have failed to identify the driver as per point 2 and the pictures they provide do not adequately prove that the signs can be easily read at night?
    Is there further template for this or shall I draft it here for feedback?
    Last edited by 3shirts; 28-02-2018 at 6:07 PM. Reason: Question
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 18, 6:10 PM
    • 57,392 Posts
    • 70,997 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 28th Feb 18, 6:10 PM
    • #5
    • 28th Feb 18, 6:10 PM
    they are using my name frequently as being responsible but I was not the driver, just the keeper. I assume that is a key point to make.
    No, it's not, unless ECP didn't serve the PCN within 15 days. If they did, that's not worth pushing.

    This is worth you closely looking at (start date, signatories, end date, does it continue into perpetuity, who are Adara Group, unlikely to be the landowners, sounds like an agent not in possession):
    Figure 5 is the authority given by Adara Group to manage the car park.
    This is key:
    They also included a bunch of photos of the signs (two of them, one by the entrance and one near the pay machine) but all photos are in full daylight which I think just serves to further support the case really.
    How do I proceed. Should I go to the site and take a picture of the sign in the dark to show how illegible it is or is it too late now I've already appealed?
    Too late, you cannot add evidence but you can reiterate that it was dark, and that ECP's own PCN evidence shows a lone numberplate in darkness, and shows no ambient light at all (if true!).

    It seems I only have a comments box to respond to their evidence.
    We all know that - search the forum for 'POPLA comments'* as we've discussed this stage too many times to keep repeating the info about what to say (brief) in the 2000 character box.




    *when searching this forum always 'go advanced' and change the default to 'SHOW POSTS'.
    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.

    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 2nd Mar 18, 9:32 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    • #6
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:32 AM
    • #6
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:32 AM
    How does this sound as comments on the evidence:

    The PCN wording replicates that found not to meet the requirements of POFA in 2 recent POPLA appeals (4163477483 & 4160317097). The driver has not been identified and I cannot be held liable for this charge.
    An unredacted ANPR agreement must be provided so that the hidden terms can be considered. Without this, POPLA cannot be satisfied that all the terms are met and that the operator has landowner authority. The section of the agreement given as evidence does not state an end date or period covered so does not prove that landowner authority was in place at the time of the issued PCN.
    Under 3.1.5 of the agreement, the operator is required to maintain sufficient signage to adequately advise drivers of the conditions of parking. The photographs provided as evidence are taken in full daylight under favourable conditions. They do not serve to prove that the signs are readable after dark, the time the vehicle in question arrived.
    The provided site map and photographs of signage provide no evidence that this vehicle was parked close to a sign or that the driver would have seen the signage, especially given the darkness.

    Does that sound like I've covered everything?

    EDIT: I looked up the land registry and Adara Group do own the land but, as above, the excerpt of the agreement ECP included as evidence doesn't give any dates other than the date it was signed.
    Last edited by 3shirts; 02-03-2018 at 10:13 AM. Reason: Checked the land registry
    • ampersand
    • By ampersand 2nd Mar 18, 10:49 AM
    • 8,426 Posts
    • 32,711 Thanks
    ampersand
    • #7
    • 2nd Mar 18, 10:49 AM
    • #7
    • 2nd Mar 18, 10:49 AM
    You are past this now, op, but I mentally altered 2 in your 1st post:
    '2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was it alleges is liable for this speculative charge.'
    #
    Good luck.
    CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT&BUDGET HELP:01274 760720, freephone0800 328 0006
    'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
    Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
    ***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
    'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET


    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 2nd Mar 18, 10:52 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    • #8
    • 2nd Mar 18, 10:52 AM
    • #8
    • 2nd Mar 18, 10:52 AM
    Thanks. Hopefully that will help others in future anyway.

    Do you have any thoughts on my last post, the reply to evidence?
    I think my main points are the lack of evidence of adequate signage in the dark and the lack of evidence that landowner authority was in place at the time.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Mar 18, 4:47 PM
    • 57,392 Posts
    • 70,997 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 2nd Mar 18, 4:47 PM
    • #9
    • 2nd Mar 18, 4:47 PM
    Don't call it an ANPR agreement, makes no sense, call it 'landowner agreement':
    An unredacted ANPR agreement must be provided so that the hidden terms can be considered. Without this, POPLA cannot be satisfied that all the terms are met and that the operator has landowner authority. The section of the agreement given as evidence does not state an end date or period covered so does not prove that landowner authority was in place at the time of the issued PCN.
    Personally, I would put in the POPLA box, a few short lines:

    These are my comments for POPLA, about the evidence pack:

    - the excerpt of the agreement ECP included as evidence doesn't give any dates other than the date it was signed. It cannot be assumed the authority lasts into perpetuity.

    - The photographs provided as evidence are taken in full daylight under favourable conditions. They do not serve to prove that the signs are readable after dark, the time the vehicle in question arrived. This was covered in my appeal and not disproven.

    As such, POPLA, as an evidence-based service, will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given, and I look forward to hearing that confirmed by the Assessor.
    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.

    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 2nd Mar 18, 7:20 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    Thanks, that all makes a lot of sense.
    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 5th Mar 18, 10:30 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    I have submitted my comments, largely as suggested by Coupon-mad above (many thanks).
    I will update when I hear the response.
    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 31st Mar 18, 9:41 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    Lost the appeal!
    Well that was a waste of time. This is POPLA's ruling:

    "The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice…Purchase and display a valid ticket or permit clearly inside your windscreen or have a valid pay by phone session”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant purchased insufficient parking time. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 18:56 and exiting at 22:36, totalling a stay of three hours and 40 minutes. The appellant states a compliant Notice to Keeper was not served. As the appellant in this case has not been identified as the driver, I must consider if the operator has met the requirements of PoFA in its attempt to hold them, as the registered keeper, liable for the charge. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper that has been issued, and I am satisfied that this meets the full requirements of PoFA. He says that the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is liable for the parking charge. I note this ground of appeal; however, as previously stated the Notice to Keeper complies with POFA and therefore the registered keeper becomes liable for the parking charge. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing parking charges at this site. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided its contract with the landowner, which I am satisfied, confirms the operator has the required authority, in line with Section 7 of the Code of Practice. I note the appellant’s comments; however, as previously stated I consider the contract sufficient to prove it has the authority. He says that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible at night or from all parking spaces. He explains that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the car park in question. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Ultimately, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant’s comments regarding lighting at the site, however, as the driver purchased a parking ticket. I am satisfied they were able to see, read, and understand the signage at the site, meaning the lighting at the site is sufficient. Therefore, the driver agreed to the terms and conditions of the site and entered into a contract with the operator. The operator has provided a system report, which confirms the appellant purchased a three hour parking session. As such, I am satisfied that the appellant purchased insufficient parking time. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant purchased insufficient parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse this appeal."

    I am angry about the 'sufficient lighting' part because they seem to be saying that the fact I bought a ticket means I could read the sign but my point was that the fines were unclear and, surely the fact I got an incorrect ticket shows I couldn't read it clearly.

    Anyway, I'm done with this. I'm not sitting and sweating about a potential court date. I paid the £100 (which would have been £60 and a lot less time writing appeals if I'd done it earlier ).

    Thanks for all the advice here but sadly this time, no justice.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 31st Mar 18, 10:10 AM
    • 35,573 Posts
    • 19,789 Thanks
    Quentin
    You have been too hasty

    If you had taken the trouble to check out the PPC at the bmpa website you would have seen their approach to going to court

    (Over the last 3 years they issued approx 800,000 tickets and took exactly 3 of them to a hearing)
    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 31st Mar 18, 10:12 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    I know but I don't want to leave it hanging around. It is stressful even if there is little chance of them going that way.

    I'll chalk this up to experience and just never use ECP again.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 31st Mar 18, 10:18 AM
    • 35,573 Posts
    • 19,789 Thanks
    Quentin
    Thing is these invoices are like any other you get you don't agree with.

    The creditor always has an option to issue a county court claim

    Not too stressful to deal with an out an out scam invoice by simply ignoring all correspondence except court correspondence which in your case looks unlikely!

    This forum would have assisted you!
    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 31st Mar 18, 10:27 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    I used this forum extensively and the advice was firmly NOT to ignore it.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 31st Mar 18, 10:34 AM
    • 35,573 Posts
    • 19,789 Thanks
    Quentin
    You misunderstood

    You posted you knew there was no chance (3 in 800000) of going to court yet paid up as soon as popla rejected your appeal

    But once that happens the advice is ignore everything you get except court correspondence.

    That's not too stressful!!
    • 3shirts
    • By 3shirts 31st Mar 18, 10:40 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    3shirts
    You underestimate my propensity to stress.

    I do see what you mean but I was so disheartened I just wanted this closed and done with.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 31st Mar 18, 10:51 AM
    • 35,573 Posts
    • 19,789 Thanks
    Quentin
    You'll understand why others reading this thread should not follow your reaction to a Popla rejection!!

    That's not the advice of this forum ! The FAQ advises on the game after a popla rejection

    It involves ignoring junk mail which you must get lots of anyway

    And you can read what the debt collectors letters look like long before one turns up.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Mar 18, 10:02 PM
    • 57,392 Posts
    • 70,997 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If you had asked first, we would have told you to search for POPLA lost to read all the other POPLA cases lost where NO-ONE PAID.

    POPLA is an option to try, not a reason to pay! Sooo frustrating, we did we bother?

    This is as bad as if you joined a PPC, you have now sponsored/funded the next few PCNs.
    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

80Posts Today

2,001Users 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