Euro Car Parks Options

[aimone]

Hi,

Wondering if anyone can help, received a PCN, not really wanting to ignore this as the car is through an employee car lease scheme, the company received the NTK(who then moved liability over, how should i proceed with this ticket, appeal?

Thanks in advance



This post has been edited by aimone: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:28

[Advertisement]

[aimone]

i sign a finance agreement and the vehicle is loaned to me for 6months, then hand it back and get a new one

[bearclaw]

OK so you do hire the vehicle. In theory that means they should have sent the relevant parts of the lease/hire agreement through which they should have had from the Registered Keeper. However that is you - whcih muddies the water a little bit! This isn't normally how a lease vehicle is set up.

I think you would be best waiting for someone with a little more knowledge to comment as well as I'm not sure a POFA s14 is going to be workable here.

[nosferatu1001]

It is a loan, so a lease / hire is exactly correct and para 14 is what you need.

What you also add is that they are under no circumstances to contact the registered keeper any longer, as they may desapite having no liability cause you to incur costs. Should you, the PPC breach your obligations under POFA Schedule 4 para 14 and return to the Registered keeper, and any expenses are then incurred by you the Keeper, you reserve the rigtht to hold the Operator liable for these costs in full. You will rely upon this letter for that purpose.

[aimone]

Thank you for your help and apologise if my previous posts didnt make 100% sense, i will use the above in my response to them closer to the ending time, should this be posted by mail or is emailing it suitable?

Dear Sirs,

I am the Keeper of vehicle xxxx and I am responding to your Notice to Keeper dated 6/2/18 but was received on xxxxxx.

You have failed to comply with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, namely, but not limited to, 14 (2) (a), failing to deliver the prescribed documents with the Notice to Hirer/Keeper. I cannot therefore be held liable for the actions of the driver at the time. There is no legal requirement for me to identify who was driving at the time and I will not be doing so. I do not expect to hear from you again except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter.

I will also add that you are under no circumstances to contact the registered keeper any longer, as they may despite having no liability cause me to incur costs. Should you, the PPC breach your obligations under POFA Schedule 4 para 14 and return to the Registered keeper, and any expenses are then incurred by me the Keeper, I reserve the right to hold the Operator liable for these costs in full.

Yours etc.

This post has been edited by aimone: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:19

[ostell]

Send it by whichever method, even both, but make sure you can show you sent it. email send a copy to yourself, mail get a free certificate of posting.

Hope you are going to educate your company staff about POFA and the difference between a fine and an invoice.

[nosferatu1001]

Certificate of posting means first class a swell. NOT recorded - research to find out why not.

[aimone]

Good Morning
 
The PCN has been issued correctly for No Valid Pay and Display Ticket / Season Ticket / Pay By Phone purchased or displayed at  Matalan – Cheltenham on  02/12/2017  - see attached dated and timed images
 
No payment
Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA and "company name" were sent a Notice to keeper
In turn they have advised that you are responsible for the vehicle on the date and time in question – therefore the Notice to Keeper has been re-issued to you
 
Prompt payment is advised – or a serviceable address of the driver 
 
Please call 020 3553 4559
 
Regards
 
Customer Services

This was the reply I received from euro car parks

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, and?
Rejection was known, because in the last week you’ll have read up and should be preparing your popla appeal. How’s it going?

[aimone]

I'm going to reply and request a popla code, do I need to request anything else from euro in regards to me supplying evidence to popla?

When the appeal is submitted to popla I assume everything is put on hold and euro cannot send anymore demand letter?

"Dear xxx,

I am going to assume you are refusing this appeal based on your response, I deny all liability to your company and I request that you supply me a POPLA verification code for me to appeal independently as per the BPA Code of Practice.


Yours etc."

Regarding the lack of any signage in the car park should i add this into the evidence aswell to make the case stronger?

This post has been edited by aimone: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 14:24

[nosferatu1001]

Wait they didn’t send a popla code?
It certainly looks like a rejection, therefore I’d complain t the BPA that no code was provided.

You don’t care about debt letters, do you? Reading around should tell you they’re powerless wastes of paper.

[aimone]

No popla code was provided, that was the whole contents of the email, apart from 7 images of the vehicle.

I'd rather not have the letters tbh otherwise I would have just ignored the ticket all together

[nosferatu1001]

They’re just letters with red ink and usually one or two lies. But no substance. They cannot do anything to you

As I said, that looks like a rejection. So BPA complaint.

[aimone]

Ok thanks, I've not had a response so will file a complaint with bpa and copy DVLA in also in the morning, does that affect popla appeal in any way, them not supplying the code?

This post has been edited by aimone: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 19:53

[nosferatu1001]

Well, without a code how do you intend to appeal to popla?

[aimone]

I have now received the rejection letter for the parking appeal which contains a popla code, im going to build the case but how should it be worded and what evidence would i submit, the original appeal email with the dates etc, images of the carpark signage and images of all the correspondence letters?

They also attached an image of the signage explaining the costs of the carpark but there isnt ANY signage in that carpark (attached pictures in previous post)...and the name is wrong on the appeal rejection letter.

Thanks for your help in all this

[nosferatu1001]

In th e last month what other POPLA appelas have you seen? That gives you a good start.

SOunds like they messed up. You can use that to your beenfit - theyre lying to you about the T&C. Attach their rejection with your dated and witnessed photos showing theyre talking crap.

[ManxRed]

Hint: Look in the Completed Cases sub forum for plenty of POPLA appeal examples. Tailor to fit your particular circumstances and post a draft up here before you send it off. You have 28 days (ish) to submit an appeal from the time the POPLA code was issued by the PPC.

[aimone]

In th e last month what other POPLA appelas have you seen? That gives you a good start.

SOunds like they messed up. You can use that to your beenfit - theyre lying to you about the T&C. Attach their rejection with your dated and witnessed photos showing theyre talking crap.

I have been reading a forum which has a post with various fail and success popla appeals which is wuite interesting so i can see how its done now, ill post the draft up asap before sending to popla

[aimone]

I have used this and tweaked it a bit, question with submitting to popla, i looked through the popla appeal forms and they ask for small sections based on your appeal and attach supporting documents, would i need to section out separate documents for each question in the form or is there somewhere i can upload 1 whole document which covers all the appeal questions like below?

There is also a lot of information below, is it really needed or can i reduce this down more?

Re: Euro Car Parks reference number
POPLA Ref:

I was the hirer of the vehicle relating to the parking charge notice (reference above).
I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and request that they are all considered.

1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

2) The signs in this car park are non existent, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge


1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14(2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and © a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.
Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA’s 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper’s (or hirer’s) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA’s assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report.

I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“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.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, 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”.

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim against me is invalid.

2) The signs in this car park are non existent, 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 ‘ ’ 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. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

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.

Here is the ‘Beavis case’ sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

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, the sign is located in a different car park at the store front. On entrance to the carpark the driver parked the car and did not go into the store, there is no signage to advise the carpark is pay and display and no signage at all within that specific carpark. I have attached images showing the carpark in question.

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 does not feature at all on some of the signs). 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, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

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 judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator’s case.

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) how their signs appeared on that date, 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. I submit that signs cannot be seen from a car before parking and mere ‘stock examples’ of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

3) 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

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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver 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 and regardless of whether a purported ‘NTK’ was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

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.’’

Thanks again

[nosferatu1001]

Convert to PDF, embedding any pictures within the narrative so point one supported by an image of... would have that image immedaitely follow
YOu submit under "other" and make sure you write the name of the appeal pdf into the "other" box, and ensure it actually uploads!