Euro Car Parks Rugeley 10 minutes, Parents were assessing if car park would meet requirements Options

[aerocell99]

Hi was wondering if anyone could offer advice in this situation for parents having received a Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper invoice.

The driver in 80's, not in best of health and had a stroke the year before last which limits his ability to walk (left foot highly impacted and hence moved to an automatic car)


Having relocated recently (downsized and moved to a bungalow) they were assessing where might be viable for him to get a haircut and earlier this month went to this carpark to assess if using this for a future hairdresser appointment would be viable.

The driver never left the vechile whilst the passenger assessed the terrain and distance. The invoice shows entry and exit at 10 minutes and 54 seconds.

Assessment deemed it was not suitable for their requirements which also meant they did not make an appointment with the hairdresser located near there and sought an alternative place more suitable that my father could walk from.

I know they need to respond to the civil notice of intent I am just not sure what the best course of response is whilst being reasonable and not over supplying information.


Thankyou in advance

Edit (thanks Dave65):
Dates of incident:01/08/2019
issue date of PPN:08/08/2019
date of receiving PPN:16/08/2019

This post has been edited by aerocell99: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 11:18

[Advertisement]

[Dave65]

First edit your post and give no indication who may have drove the vehicle, always refer to "the driver" did this or that.

Grace periods are there for reading signage etc to agree to park, 10 mins and time to leave. 54 seconds is a bit meanful but for these PPC not surprising.

Dates of incident, issue date of PPN, date of receiving PPN.

This post has been edited by Dave65: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 11:01

[Jlc]

Are the medical conditions considered protected under the Equality Act?

They are not litigious but are still likely to reject any appeal because they can.

issue date of PPN:08/08/2019
date of receiving PPN:16/08/2019

Any reason for this 'delay'? (It's outside 14 days)

Does the PCN claim keeper liability?

Is there someone to contact about the car park? (Other than the parking company)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 11:34

[aerocell99]

Are the medical conditions considered protected under the Equality Act?

He was already registered as disabled prior to the stroke - so that and age are both in the equality act I believe

Any reason for this 'delay'? (It's outside 14 days)

In between moving they registered at my address and I had just returned from holiday - literally they moved into the bungalow last week

Does the PCN claim keeper liability?

Not as far as I can tell

Is there someone to contact about the car park? (Other than the parking company)

No details other than euro cark parks given in reference to contact. Attaching shrunk and with redactions what was received

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[ostell]

They have failed to give the invitation to keeper as required by POFA 9 (2) (e). They have also failed to give the required period of parking. Time recorded by moving in front of a camera cannot by definition, be parking. Their own Code of Practise required that they allow grace period of 10 minutes minimum. The CoP also required that sufficient time should be made for people to read the conditions and decide to stay or leave without penalty.

There is also the matter of the equality Act and failure to make allowance is a criminal act.

I'm sure you can build an appeal from that.

[aerocell99]

They have failed to give the invitation to keeper as required by POFA 9 (2) (e). They have also failed to give the required period of parking. Time recorded by moving in front of a camera cannot by definition, be parking. Their own Code of Practise required that they allow grace period of 10 minutes minimum. The CoP also required that sufficient time should be made for people to read the conditions and decide to stay or leave without penalty.

There is also the matter of the equality Act and failure to make allowance is a criminal act.

I'm sure you can build an appeal from that.

Thankyou

[aerocell99]

They have failed to give the invitation to keeper as required by POFA 9 (2) (e). They have also failed to give the required period of parking. Time recorded by moving in front of a camera cannot by definition, be parking. Their own Code of Practise required that they allow grace period of 10 minutes minimum. The CoP also required that sufficient time should be made for people to read the conditions and decide to stay or leave without penalty.

There is also the matter of the equality Act and failure to make allowance is a criminal act.

I'm sure you can build an appeal from that.

Hi, just an update to say appeal was successful and thankyou for the pointers.

If useful to anyone else that finds themselves in a similar position to my parents the wording of the appeal was as follows:

I am in receipt of the above notice and appeal the validity on the following grounds:

i) You have supplied evidence of entry and exit for the car park at 10 minute and 54 seconds

The photo’s supplied are from a moving vechile and fails to provide evidence of the time spent within a parking bay parked. By definition, a moving vechile is not a parked vechile and you fail to make allowance for either finding a parking spot or the wait times whilst dealing with other vehicles manoeuvring or in fact any proof of time spent parked in a bay.

ii) Code of Practice (CoP) Clause 13.2 and 30.2 - If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.


In private parking this gives enough time be made for people to read the conditions of the offer and decide to stay or leave without penalty (contract formed or declined), after deeming unsuitable for my needs I declined the contract offered and left. Please note the term is the minimum under CoP.


iii) Contrary to the requirements in Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

The Notice To Keeper fails to include all of the above wording, as prescribed under the statute.


iv) Requirement for Provision required under the Equality Act (this being criminal rather than civil law)

I am 79 years of age, registered disabled and had a stroke the year before last which severely hampers my mobility, specifically my left leg (hence the automatic car).
Further the purpose of coming to the car park on that day was to ascertain if it would be viable for me to be able to navigate from there to the hairdressers located nearby so that when we moved into the bungalow (renovation completed last week) would parking as advertised be suitable.

I left as soon as deemed they were not fit for my requirements without myself having even left the carpark. Under the Equalities Act there is a requirement for considerations to be made due to my physical limitations. Hopefully you will reasonably concur, and I will not be required to seek a criminal case recorded in this instance?


I look forward to your swift resolution on this matter.

Regards

This post has been edited by aerocell99: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 22:45

[The Rookie]

That was lucky, putting PoFA in an appeal and then revealing the drivers ID wasn’t the best move though.

[aerocell99]

That was lucky, putting PoFA in an appeal and then revealing the drivers ID wasn’t the best move though.

Not following you on why not to quote PoFA? I did miss that I had left one case reference though.

Not sure luck though but certainly with help from above two posters, strengthened the dispute on there being any contract formed and in which route that contest would be challenged, reasonably, in this instance.

Glad, whoever was assessing, was being reasonable though rather than needing to follow up on highlighting they weren't.

[nosferatu1001]

POFA only helps when the drvier isnt known
Revealing the driver is a bad move, usually

[aerocell99]

POFA only helps when the drvier isnt known
Revealing the driver is a bad move, usually

Ah following now - although in the appeal communicated there is no information volunteering either how many occupants were in the car or which of those was the driver.

What was stated in the appeal was the purpose and reason for the trip and that my father (who they have written to) had himself never left the carpark (being present does not equate to him being the driver - that is an assumption).

However points 1, 2 and 4 I think were the stronger parts in disputing. i.e. no case as no contract formed and actively declined, CoP states minimum 10 minutes parked which they have not got evidence for and reasonable consideration due to age and mobility a legal requirement under criminal law.

Either way, glad for the input from this site that helped form an appeal for them and resulted in saving them £60. If they had parked there to use rather than assess then they would have bought a ticket where as being fined for assessing if they could use just felt a bit wrong.

This post has been edited by aerocell99: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 09:57

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, but it increases the probability. And thats all they need, remember - they just have to persuade the court that as they didnt deny being the driver, and were definitely there, AND ... etc.

So if you state someone was there, explicitly state they were nto the dfiver (if you can) OR state that they were an occupant

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 07:39