PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro Car Parks - No first letter
Amit Chaudhary
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,633



Hi Experts

My wife received a letter from Euro Car Parks demanding £75 and advising that "The Driver has failed to pay the notice amount within the time specified. As per the displayed terms and conditions on site the amount due has now increased"

I have downloaded an appeal template from Parking Cowboys but could you please provide guidance on

1. We did not get a notice fixed to the vehicle or a first "Notice to Keeper" send to us (with a discount). Does the BPA AOS Code of Practice requires on operator to provide proof a first notice was sent
2. Should I include a statement in my letter telling them nothing was received in the post

We would appreciate any other guidance you can offer us.
Many thanks

This post has been edited by Amit Chaudhary: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 21)
Amit Chaudhary
post Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 11:51
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,633



so appeal was unsuccessful - despite never receiving the first letter offering 14 days discount POPLA found in favour of ECP.


I do not need to consider whether or not a PCN was affixed to the vehicle as this is not common practice when the operator issued a notice to keeper. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict guidelines set out in section 9 of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012, therefore the liability for the parking charge has been transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant’s vehicle registration, was captured entering the site at 13:21 and exiting at 13:38. The appellant remained at the site for a period of xxxxx. When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. The terms and conditions at the site state “PAY & DISPLAY/PAY BY PHONE”, “UP TO 2 HOURS £3.00, MAXIMUM STAY 4 HOURS”. In addition there is a helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site. From the evidence of the signage provided by the operator and a site map showing its location. I can see that there are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant as no valid payment was detected. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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”. The contract provided by the operator is valid and was on the date of the contravention. As such, I am satisfied the contract covers the relevant requirements and that the operator has evidenced it had the authority to issue and pursue PCNs on the land on the date of parking. Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”. However, if a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and the motorist must only decide not to park, and take no other action, whilst at the site. I can see that the appellant remained on site for a period of 16 minutes without a valid payment. The appellant has not given a reason for their stay so it is not possible to consider what their actions and the reason for the delay. Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR camera for”. Though I note the appellant has disputed ANPR system, they have not presented any evidence to support errors or lack of being fit for purpose in recording the vehicle’s stay in this instance. As such, I must assume the operator’s evidence is accurate. Based upon the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the car park in question is such as a premise. This is because the parking is managed by ANPR cameras, and motorists park their vehicles without any assistance. I consider that there is no requirement for the operator to provide pre-contract information to motorists before a contract can be concluded, in this instance. Reviewing the evidence provided on behalf of the motorist, I cannot see any evidence that might convince me that the motorist was a legitimate customer of any business at the site. Accordingly, whether such a clause in the contract exists between the landowner and the parking operator has no bearing on my decision in this case. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice as stated above sets requirements for signage. These are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the PoFA 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The operator has provided a site map showing the boundary of the land and the positions of signage, including an entrance sign. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the signage at the location is clear; the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100, this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Within the notice to keeper the general information section highlights the fact that the operator has reasonable cause to contact DVLA when it feels that the terms and conditions at the site have been breached. As such, I am satisfied that the relevant notice of intention to obtain details was given. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Advertisement
post Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 11:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 15:23
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,310
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



So they’re satisfied a NtK was issued in time? Based on what evidence?

Ignore ecp. They don’t do court.
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: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 10:52
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.