PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro car parks, Wilko's Castleford
Yeti_face
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 15:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



Hi everyone.
I
I have an almost identical case to this, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108433

same car park with PCN issued for a duration of 21 minutes.

ECP have rejected the appeal lodged (an MSE template) by the registered keeper, So now it's time to submit the lengthy POPLA appeal.

Wilkinson no longer have the signage up advertising 15 minutes free parking, but an occupant of the vehicle at the time was a severely disabled person who has to get around by mobility scooter and a great deal of time is spent unloading and assembling said scooter before having a chance to read and reject ECP's contract.

I would be most grateful of a some appeal winning advice please.

Thanks in anticipation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 15:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 19:34
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



Here is my first draft for POPLA appeal.

I would be most grateful if anyone offers advice. Is there anything I can add/Omit to make it better?




POPLA Ref [XXXXXX] - Vehicle Registration XXXXXXXX]
Euro Car Parks Ltd: Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXX

I write to submit to POPLA the details of my dispute with Euro Car Parks Limited (“ECP”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued in respect of an alleged breach of terms and conditions of parking at Carlton Street Car Park, Castleford on [Date of Incident].

I confirm that I am this vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I set out why I am not liable for this parking charge as follows:

1) ECP failed to allow a reasonable grace period and is in breach of the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice
2) ECP has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
3) The car park signage was inadequate.
4) ECP failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in compliance with the requirements of POFA.
5) [Photographs and other points ]

1) ECP failed to allow a reasonable grace period and is in breach of the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice

ECP’s PCN records that my vehicle spent a total of 21 minutes in the car park, with the respective entry and exit times being recorded as 12.24 and 12.45.

ECP has stated that the Parking Charge was issued because no valid pay and display / permit was purchased and that this was in breach of the terms and conditions of the signage set out on the site.

I
Paragraph 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states that you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. 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.


Furthermore, this calculation does not even take into account the requirement for ECP to allow a reasonable grace period before the parking contract even begins. This is detailed in Paragraph 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice which states that you should allow the driver a reasonable “grace period” in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

Although Paragraph 13.2 does not specify what constitutes a “reasonable grace period” for a motorist to decide whether to stay or go, this grace period begins when the vehicle passes the ANPR camera at the car park entrance and must cover:

a) the time to drive into the car park and locate a parking space
b) the time to manoeuvre the vehicle into the parking space (once a space has been located)
c) the time for a driver to locate and walk to the nearest car park sign to the parking space
d) the time taken to read and understand all of the conditions contained on the car park sign; this includes having to read all of the “small print” on the sign.

The BPA Code of Practice considers it reasonable to apply a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes for a motorist to leave the car park at the end of the parking contract (i.e. for the motorist to get into their vehicle, manoeuvre out of the parking space and drive out of the car park). Given that more processes are involved in the period before the parking contract is formed (e.g. finding a parking space, locating a car park sign and then reading and understanding the terms on the sign), it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period before the establishment of the parking contact must be more than the minimum of the 10 minutes specified by the BPA Code of Practice as the grace period after the parking contract has ended.

Thus the overall grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice must AT LEAST 20 minutes for an able bodied person.
I trust Euro Car Parks are familiar with their statutory duties under UK disability law and will be aware (among other provisions of the Equality Act 2010 - the 'EA') that a failure to make a 'reasonable adjustment' of time is discrimination. Not only that, their client is jointly and severally liable for their conduct.

Whilst an arbitrary grace period of 20 minutes for the able-bodied patrons of this site, it is not sufficient for those patrons with mobility and other relevant 'protected characteristics' under the EA. I have stage 3 heart failure and I was an occupant of the car. I am unable to walk so have to rely on a mobility scooter which has to be removed by winch from the vehicle and assembled . There is sufficient case law and published articles regarding legal action started by DMUK, that confirm the fact that it is illegal for you or your client to charge me for the extra time I need to go about daily life.

I have uploaded a copy of my Blue Badge and trust you understand the seriousness of your failure in your statutory duty. ANPR with a set time limit is unfit for purpose where disabled service-users 'at large' are concerned. It is no lawful excuse for ECP reply that you 'could not have known' about my condition, because it is irrelevant when the issue is 'indirect discrimination' against disabled visitors at large, for which there is no such lawful justification.

To avoid a breach of the EA (a criminal offence), ECP could have taken very simple, reasonable steps to make extra time available to disabled visitors by a method advertised at the retail tills and CS desks and prominently on your signs, and/or ECP could have bothered to use a parking operative physically at the location to police the disabled bays and check Blue Badges, not to issue more PCNs but to positively exempt those cars from the ANPR system. ECP did nothing.

I urge ECP to reconsider their position and seek legal advice if not cancelling, because I can in fact sue ECP and your client, who are jointly and severally liable for my serious distress, due to your discrimination and harassment. The authority for my right to seek compensation for distress, likely to be upheld in a four figure sum, is: Blamires v Local Government Ombudsman, Leeds County Court - 1 Jul 2017 - Case No: 3SP00071


I would prefer to end this sorry tale now, and trust ECP agree. I consent to ECP contacting me once more, to apologise for this discriminatory charge and to confirm that the Parking Notice is cancelled, and I will never be troubled again by your company or your agents.


2) ECP has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park

I set out the relevant provisions of the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice as follows:

7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

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

I do not believe that ECP has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ECP must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I therefore require ECP to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract is compliant with Paragraphs 7.1 – 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and permits ECP to make contracts with drivers in its own right, providing it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

3) The car park signage was inadequate

ECP should be aware that the BPA Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

Paragraph 68: 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.

Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have reason to believe that the signs at this car particular park were inadequate, including that;

a) They were insufficiently clear to impart details of all of the terms and conditions to the driver.
b) They did not clearly explain to motorists that parking time would be measured against the times recorded by the ANPR cameras at the car park’s entrance and exit and not as a measure of the time that the vehicle was actually parked.
c) Contrary to the requirement of Paragraph 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice, there was not one sign that could be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle.
d) They did not properly warn motorists of the purpose of the operation of the ANPR cameras; Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. I contend that ECP’s signs do not comply with these requirements.
e) They did not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that ECP would reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver. In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for the driver to conclude that ECP was one of the many private parking companies that choose not to utilise the provisions of POFA thereby limiting the scope of their claim only to the driver. It is unreasonable that ECP should seek to apply this additional condition retrospectively

I require from ECP contemporaneous photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.

5) [Photographs]

Disabled Badge

(not adding a link to the image here for obvious reasons)




Entrance sign, not stating what ANPR is used for

https://i.ibb.co/vYTykfC/entrance-sign.jpg


Terms and conditions sign

https://i.ibb.co/NyFvR6H/main-sign.jpg

The above photograph was supplied by ECP themselves in their appeal rejection email, All written in tiny text, especially the part in red which is headed “important notice”
This is the only sign in the car park with full terms and conditions on it. The section in red text at the bottom of the sign that is apparently an “Important Notice” is in tiny text that is impossible to read without a stepladder, particularly in the dark when you would also need a torch. It cannot be ignored – the wording used clearly states it is important and therefore urges the reader to fully read and understand. Why is something so important so small and illegible? Furthermore, red text on a yellow background is difficult to read.
Indeed, in relation to design principles, it is widely known that colour contrast plays a key role in terms of accessibility as it “affects some people’s ability to perceive information (in other words to be able to receive the information visually).” (Government Digital Service, 17 June 2016). Whilst this web page discusses design principles in relation to web design, the same points are true ofprint-based materials which would include signage. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly (see below photograph)indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:
“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and
conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Signs showing your detailed terms
and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”









No signs at all in front disabled bays by the store entrance

https://i.ibb.co/RcFdk0K/MVIMG-20190116-093227846.jpg







Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that POPLA confirms that ECP has no valid claim against me and that its PCN should be cancelled and credited in full.


Yours faithfully,



[Registered Keeper ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 10:46
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



If you have someone who is disabled to the extent that there is a mobility scooter involved, that needs to be front and centre. Point out very clearly that there was a person in the vehicle who has protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and they MUST allow reasonable adjustments for this person, and these adjustments have not been met.

Have you complained in those terms as well to Wilko's? Not to the people on the floor, the store manager, that they need to make these adjusments they didnt and the ticket is the consequence and you require (not need not ask, REQUIRE) them to instruct their agent to cancel the ticket.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 11:19
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



Thanks, much appreciated.
I am fighting this battle on behalf of the registered keeper, who is an elderly frail person, who went into Wilko but was fobbed off with a load of rubbish from the floor staff, saying they don't own the car park. The person never got to speak to the manager as they are not an assertive enough person. I will pop in there myself and demand to speak to a person of authority.

This post has been edited by Yeti_face: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 12:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 11:24
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



When you do - get photos of the signs and how visible they are or are not... especially entrance signs and whatnot as you go in the car park.

I had a similar one neatby at the Morrisons, sadly it's a different car park but I'll check and see if I have any useful documents still from the planning dept.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 11:48
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



I've already got the photographs of the inadequate signage.

This is the entrance sign, not stating what ANPR is used for



And this is the only T&C Board in the car park, which is mounted above the ticket machines and is extremely difficult to read. This is the photo the goons at ECP provided themselves!




Both are included in my POPLA draft in post #2

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 11:58
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



You want a better wide angle shot if thats the only sign in the car park showing how it's easy to miss. I mean that entry sign is its camrea controlled it says nothing about actually having to pay. So if there is no clear signs inside that can be seen easily how the hell does the driver know it's to be paid.

Post #4 btw. Remove the gender of the driver. "a frail person" is more than sufficient...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 12:05
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



Gender removed, even though it was only the gender of the registered keeper. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 18:43
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Have you at any time informed ECP that an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010? If not, I would do so. There should be a letter on here somewhere. Search 'School Run Mum Equality Act.' It may encourage them to cancel the charge if there is the prospect of action against them.

However, don't miss your POPLA deadline in case ECP bury their head in the sand!

These threads may help......including one with ECP!!!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124864

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...08314&st=40

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 18:48


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 19:27
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



ECP were informed on their online appeal form of a disabled occupant of the vehicle. The full details of the disability were not disclosed.

They rejected the appeal using their bog standard rejection letter.

Here's a snippet of it regarding disabled persons

The disabled badge handbook will inform the badge holder (or carer) that when they enter a
private car park they must abide by the rules and regulations of the site.
If it is a pay and display site a valid pay and display ticket must be purchased.
A disabled badge will only offer free/extended parking on local authority car parks.


This post has been edited by Yeti_face: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 19:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 19:47
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I doubt that clause in their 'after the event' response will be sufficient to override the provisions of the Equality Act.

I wonder if POPLA could be joined into a complaint/action if they are made aware of the existence of a disability but fail to consider it in an appeal?


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 12:04
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



So I submitted the POPLA appeal on 17/1/2019 (29 days ago) and received the acknowledgement email back on the same day.
I have had no further communication from POPLA or ECP. Just logged on to POPLA to see what's happening and it says "Operator Information and Evidence Submitted 01/01/0001"


There is NO evidence for me to view and as I said, ECP have not sent anything to me.
What's the story with using false dates and not providing me with the "evidence"?

This post has been edited by Yeti_face: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 12:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 12:43
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



They had 28 days to submit evidence so just about there now
Sounds like a system error. Message POPLA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 12:57
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



I have just messaged POPLA stating that using a false date of 01/01/0001 gives the impression that they are on the side of the parking operators and not an impartial organisation.
I've also pointed out that no evidence pack has been sent or available to rebut on the track your appeal page.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 13:48
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



I believe that if you see that date then no operator evidence has been submitted and that is the default date in the system that will be filled in when/if evidence actually arrives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 14:01
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



So does that mean that the operators are given as long as they please to provide their "evidence" but the person they are pursuing has strict timelines to adhere to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:21
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



That means they have not submitted an evidence pack in time. You will eventually receive a default win notification.

They have only 21 days to respond.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:32
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:21) *
That means they have not submitted an evidence pack in time. You will eventually receive a default win notification.

They have only 21 days to respond.




I like the sound of that. Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yeti_face
post Tue, 19 Feb 2019 - 10:21
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,942



Success! smile.gif

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Adam Taylor

Assessor summary of operator case
In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case
I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.




Up yours Euro car parks, you scamming scumbags
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Tue, 19 Feb 2019 - 14:41
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Well done!

Although it might not seem taht you did anything, I bet ECP saw the disability angle, realised they could be onto a distinct loser and just quietly dropped it.

Either way it's a win for you smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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 - 14:00
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