PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro Car Parks: Notice to Keeper - No permit purchased
BobMann
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 22:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BobMann
post Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 13:19
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,978



QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 22:48) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post 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)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BobMann
post Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 14:44
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,978



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 13:50) *
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 biggrin.gif

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BobMann
post 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)."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BobMann
post Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 19:16
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,978



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 17:42) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BobMann
post Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 16:00
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,978



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 20:32) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BobMann
post 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.

  1. Failure to comply with Section 9 (2) (e) of POFA: As per my ECP appeal
  2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge: Based on item 1 above.
  3. Entrance signs not clear/parking charge not prominant: I don't believe the sign(s) are visible from all parking spaces, and the photo they have sent shows the charge to be in smaller writing than the rest of the sign, buried in a large block of text.
  4. Grace times: I believe best practice is for them to allow 10 minutes for the driver to enter the carpark & read the sign, and 10 minutes to leave if they do not wish to park. As the "event" lasted 18 minutes 30 seconds I assume this would apply.
  5. No evidence of period parked:
  6. No evidence the ANPR is reliable\accurate:
  7. No Evidence of Landowner Authority:

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BobMann
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:41
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here