Euro Car Parks: Notice to Keeper - No permit purchased |
Euro Car Parks: Notice to Keeper - No permit purchased |
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 22:12
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
I've just recieved a Notice to Keeper from Euro Car Parks for failing to pay for parking at one of their car parks. I assume the driver simply forgot to purchase a ticket, but I think the £100 they're charging is excessive (even the £60 for paying early), so I'm hoping someone here might have a suggestion on how I, as keeper, can appeal it.
I've gone through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 page, but it looks like the letter complies. Looking at old threads I've seen mention of the entry\exit times not being valid proof of parking time, and that there is no "Date Sent" (with the Date\Date issued possibly being the date the letter was generated, rather than posted). Both of these seem flimsy to me, and may not even be relevant anymore. It apppears there are two signs on entry to the car park, one states "Pay & Display" in large letters, the other presumably is the terms & conditions in smaller writing. I'll try and get a photo of them. I can't argue that they aren't visible, but are there any rules on how legible the T&C's should be, e.g. should they be readable from a distance, or from the drivers seat on entry? The business that owned the car park has closed down, so I wouldn't know who to contact about it, nor would they have any reason to help me. Any ideas, or am I out of luck? Notice to keeper - https://ibb.co/FDQVVTJ Date of event = 12/02/20 Date issued = 19/02/20 Date = 19/02/20 This post has been edited by BobMann: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 13:20 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 22:12
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 22:48
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Edit your post sio that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred, use "the driver......" etc
What are the dates? you've hidden them. 9 (2) (e), the invitation to keeper, has not been given in the prescribed format. I'd post up a template appeal but at the moment I can't access it as I'm rebuilding my computer. If you search you will find an appeal using that point. |
|
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 13:19
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
Edit your post sio that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred, use "the driver......" etc What are the dates? you've hidden them. 9 (2) (e), the invitation to keeper, has not been given in the prescribed format. I'd post up a template appeal but at the moment I can't access it as I'm rebuilding my computer. If you search you will find an appeal using that point. Thanks, I've edited my post and added the dates. I'll have a search on the forums, but could you tell me what's missing for 9 (2) (e)? I thought it was covered by paragraph 4 "You are notified under the paragraph 9(2)(b) ..." etc. |
|
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 13:50
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
9 (2) (b) just states that the keeper must be informed that the driver is liable.
Can you find any wording that is in the format of 9 (2) (e)? |
|
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 14:44
Post
#5
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
9 (2) (b) just states that the keeper must be informed that the driver is liable. Can you find any wording that is in the format of 9 (2) (e)? Sorry, I was too lazy to type out the whole paragraph It states "As we don't know the drivers name & address..", and "if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them." I was then reading the next paragraph as covering 9(2)(e)(i), where it explains that they have the right to recover the charge from the keeper after 29 days, but on re-read I see that's 9(2)(f). I can see no wording specifically inviting the keeper to pay the charge. Is this omission likely to be enough to appeal on? |
|
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 15:52
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
Ok, I've found a few examples of 9(2)(e) appeals. Based on them I'm guessing I should send a response as per below (which they will almost certainly reject), and save any more detailed arguments for the POPLA appeal?
QUOTE Dear Sirs, I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx You have failed to comply with The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, Section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You have failed to give the invitation prescribed therefore within. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so. I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records. Yours etc I've seen a few mentions from you in other threads about proof of entry/exit not being proof of parking. Do you think I should add a line to my response "Additionally, you have not provided any evidence of parking, as per Section (9) (2) (a)." |
|
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 17:42
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
If they accepted appeals they would get no income so save all the POFA fails for POPLA
|
|
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 19:16
Post
#8
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
If they accepted appeals they would get no income so save all the POFA fails for POPLA Understood. In that case I'll go with the MSE template (removing the mention of the landowner), and save everything else for the POPLA appeal. QUOTE Re PCN number:
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle. If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it. If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. |
|
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 20:32
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Then they laugh as they know where you got that from. It makes not a lot of sense
Just send what was suggested |
|
|
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 16:00
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
Then they laugh as they know where you got that from. It makes not a lot of sense Just send what was suggested Sorry, I assumed when you said to save POFA issues for the appeal you were including the Section 9(2)(e) error. I'll go ahead and send the initial response I posted. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2020 - 22:11
Post
#11
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
I've had my appeal to ECP refused, as expected, and am now writing my POPLA appeal, largely based on the MSE newbies guide and this post. I'll post the whole thing when I'm done, but I've listed below the main points I'm raising.
I may also add something about data protection requirements, as per item 4 here, but I need to do a bit more research as the BPA Code of Practice has been updated, and some of the wording has changed. Could you let me know if I'm on the right track, and if there's anything obvious I've missed? |
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2020 - 23:25
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 22 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,978 |
It looks like the BPA Code of Practice was updated in January, with the previous version apparently applying up until 6th January, and one of the changes is to the grace periods.
It no longer refers to 10 minutes to enter & read the T&C's (section 13.2), and an additional 10 minutes to leave (Section 13.4). *If* I'm reading it correctly they now reccomend a minimum of 5 minutes to enter & read the T&C's (Section 13.1) and an additional 10 minutes to leave (Section 13.3). Would you reccomend I: a) refer to the new version, and claim that 10 minutes is reasonable to read the t&c's? If so do you think it would be worth using the old version as evidence that 10 minutes isn't wildly inappropriate? b) refer solely to the previous version, on the basis that the driver would not reasonably know of such a recent update? BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice v8 BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice v7 |
|
|
Fri, 6 Mar 2020 - 08:32
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
That appeals not up to much, you need to make your points not state a bullet point.
6 is meaningless -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:41 |