PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro Car Parks - Parking Charge Notice
Banananana
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 00:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Hi All,
I've used these forums a few years back, at the time, the advice was to ignore invoices from Private parking companies, but I see times have changed...?!

So, in a nutshell, what has happened? Are these companies now successfully taking people to court...? I see the advice now is to Appeal first and if that fails, to then ignore any further letters..? Is that right...? Why Appeal to then ignore...? I don't fully understand....

The Keeper has recently received from 'Euro Car Parks', a 'Notice to Keeper' - with a 'Parking Charge Notice Amount Due £85'. The Driver visited a pub that the driver had been to many times before, and didn't notice either the newly placed signs, or the requirement to enter a Registration number at the terminal by the bar. First awareness of the requirement was the Keeper receiving the Notice.

So, guessing the advice would be to appeal, and appeal again...? But then if those appeals fail to ignore anything further....? If anyone could help, - very grateful...!!

Am creating a copy of the notice with personal details obscured, and will post here too.
Thanks for any help...!

This post has been edited by Banananana: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 09:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 00:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Banananana
post Thu, 12 Dec 2019 - 00:27
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Thanks Nosferatu.
I actually struggled to find a POPLA appeal from 2019 in the forum, but eventually found this one, as below, from http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...25595&st=20
Is this a good choice to base an appeal from....?
Obviously I would go through and edit the particular references that were specific to that case, and get rid of the Notice to Driver section, which is not relevant in this case.
Just wanted to know if this is considered a good POPLA appeal before I continue, or should I search again...?

Thanks all!

QUOTE
As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

1) No keeper liability
2) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines
3) No evidence of period parked
4) No landowner authority
5) Lack of signage- unclear signage
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No keeper Liability - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012, no 'Notice to Driver' was served whilst the car was stationary.

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below the requirements for a 'Notice to Driver' as set out in Schedule 4 which clearly requires either:

- Under paras 7 & 8: a windscreen PCN (in person, issued on the car before it leaves the site) followed by a postal 'Notice to Keeper' served no sooner than 29 days later,

OR

- Under paragraph 9: a compliant postal 'Notice to Keeper' to be served within 14 days of the event.

Neither of these two mandatory routes were followed in this case. Paragraph 7 states:

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given—

(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b)while the vehicle is stationary,

by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


No such Notice to Driver was served. Instead, a hybrid document the operator called a 'PCN' was posted. This neither matched the mandatory requirements of paragraph 7 as a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was posted, not served whilst the vehicle was stationary) nor does it meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

The non-compliant wording of this NTK is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

Consequently, ECP has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If ECP should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

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.”

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

2) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines:
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite ECP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

3) No evidence of period parked. The NtK clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of a ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ECP are not able to definitively state the period of parking. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods. These are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within. An alleged 30 minutes overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 40 minutes.

4)No landowner Authority:

I question ECP’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put ECP to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question ECP’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that ECP is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that ECP are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“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 put ECP to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 20 minutes in a car park.
I require ECP to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
5) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst manoeuvring into the car park from the public road and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligible. For this Please see photograph 1, where any kind of signage is missing at the entrance of the petrol station.
A driver can mistakenly think that the sign highlighted in Picture 2 is related to the area blocked by the barrier, and not related to the petrol station.


The BPA Code of Practice states that- “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. “. As you can see in Picture 3 and 4, there are areas where the signage is not properly visible and a small sign is hanged on top of a pole with no light at all, difficult to be seen.

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. I put ECP to strict proof on this point. As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car park, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore, as stated, a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...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.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.


6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

The ECP evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. To capture a vehicle entering Shell Gatwick car park and actually crossing the boundary into the land in question, it would appear that the only conceivable location for a camera would be directly across the road from the entrance therefore outside the car park and taken from public land.
In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they in fact offered a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences. i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the rear number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that ECP produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ECP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put ECP to strict proof to the contrary.

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Dec 2019 - 11:34
Post #22


Member


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



Its fine!
We actually dont get as many as over on MSE FORUM (not the main website, the forum!) do, so they are also a brilliant resource!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Fri, 13 Dec 2019 - 15:37
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Hi All,

So in the appeal as above there's a line in section "5) Lack of signage - unclear signage"
QUOTE
The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.


Having read BPA CoP Appendix B, as far as I can tell, the signs do conform to the rules, ....but I'm no expert, did I miss anything wrong with the sign...? ....or I'm thinking I should delete from appeal....?

If anyone has a moment to look over the image, I'd much appreciate, thanks very much!



This post has been edited by Banananana: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 - 16:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 13 Dec 2019 - 18:42
Post #24


Member


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



That is a forbidding sign in that no contract is offered to non authorised users. No contract then there can be no breach, no breach then no charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Fri, 13 Dec 2019 - 20:09
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



I don't see that it's a forbidding sign. It seems to imply free parking for authorised vehicles, while everyone else has to pay by phone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Sat, 14 Dec 2019 - 00:29
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



How are you defining what counts as a 'forbidding sign'....?
Also hoped someone could confirm: the last section of the appeal, 6, in the last paragragh:
QUOTE
The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live"

Is this only relevant in cases where questioning the details of an NTK and an overstay at a Pay & Display...? Or would this have any relevance in this Keepers case, where driver should enter Reg details at the bar...?
Thanks again all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 01:06
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Hi All,
So I've edited the appeal I found on the forum, to remove the specifics of the original case & add in details for this keepers case.
If anyone could just help me clear up a few details, I think I'm ready to submit to POPLA
1) Do I need to provide photographic evidence with the appeal, or is it sufficient just to question the adequacy of the signs in writing, by itself...?

2) I've edited section 3 (No evidence of period parked) to mention the drive in/drive out problem with ANPR, (although this is also mentioned later in the appeal as well) so as to make this section more relevant to the particulars of this case, if anyone could tell me if it is ok, I'd be grateful!

3) I've removed the line: "The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B" - because it seems to me the sign (photo above) complies, unless I've missed some aspect...?
4) I've edited the first paragraph in section 6, just re-worded part that didn't read well to me.

5) Presume I could add in that the NTK doesn't conform with POFA on 9(2)(h) - "identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made" - that is - if I'm correct in thinking that it doesn't comply...? They mention in the NTK "...is now payable to Euro Car Parks (as the creditor)" with payment options given on page 2 - but does that fail with exact wording requirements...?

Thanks for any further help with this, much appreciated!

QUOTE
As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

1) No keeper liability
2) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines
3) No evidence of period parked
4) No landowner authority
5) Lack of signage- unclear signage
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No keeper Liability - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, no 'Notice to Driver' was served whilst the car was stationary.

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below the requirements for a 'Notice to Driver' as set out in Schedule 4 which clearly requires either:

- Under paragraphs 7 & 8: a windscreen PCN (in person, issued on the car before it leaves the site) followed by a postal 'Notice to Keeper' served no sooner than 29 days later,

OR

- Under paragraph 9: a compliant postal 'Notice to Keeper' to be served within 14 days of the event.

Neither of these two mandatory routes were followed in this case. Paragraph 7 states:

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given—

(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b)while the vehicle is stationary,

by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


No such Notice to Driver was served. Instead, a hybrid document the operator called a 'PCN' was posted. This neither matched the mandatory requirements of paragraph 7 as a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was posted, not served whilst the vehicle was stationary) nor does it meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

The non-compliant wording of this NTK is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

Consequently, ECP has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If ECP should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

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.”

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. In page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

2) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines:
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite ECP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

3) No evidence of period parked. The NTK clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. POFA 2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of a ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ECP are not able to definitively state the period of parking. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked at all, but could have in fact used the mandatory grace periods when driving in to drop off a passenger and rejecting the parking terms. The exit time given on the NTK could in fact have been taken from a second visit, for example, in order to collect a passenger as part of a drive in/drive out event (This has been well documented and sometimes referred to as the ‘double dip’ phenomenon). The grace periods are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within.

4)No landowner Authority:

I question ECP’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put ECP to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question ECP’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that ECP is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that ECP are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“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 put ECP to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 20 minutes in a car park.
I require ECP to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

5) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst manoeuvring into the car park from the public road and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligible. For this Please see photograph 1

The BPA Code of Practice states that- “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.“

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. I put ECP to strict proof on this point. As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car park, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore, as stated, a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...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.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.

6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

The ECP evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they in fact offered instead a pay and display system, which the driver could only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking would commence, i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, then only at that point would the clock be able to be started in order to measure a parking period, rather than the arrival at the car park entrance. The exit photo image of the rear number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same singular parking event.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that ECP produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ECP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put ECP to strict proof to the contrary.

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 10:09
Post #28


Member


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



3) I dislike the "could have been". It either WAS a double dip, and you state so, or it wasnt.

Of cuourse you include images
Exactly as the MSE thread tells you in no uncertain terms to do. It is embedded within the appeal, not at the end, but inline with the text.

Creditor -= ditch that line, they id the creditor and tell you how to contact them.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 12:22
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Hi Nosferatu, thanks for your comments!

QUOTE
3) I dislike the "could have been". It either WAS a double dip, and you state so, or it wasnt.

Was keeping it ambiguous as the keeper is not necessarily sure what the driver did, but will change to a more certain wording
Also: am I right that there is no issue between the sign and the BPA CoP Appendix B....??
Thanks very much!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 13:28
Post #30


Member


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



Well the keeper asks the driver. Get the story straight. If its a double dip it can of course be multiple drivers as wlel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Wed, 18 Dec 2019 - 14:16
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Hi All, & thanks Nosferatu for your help,
So I think I have the appeal ready to submit, fairly confident after research that any changes I've made should be ok.

I intend to submit to POPLA tonight or tomorrow
Thanks very much!

This post has been edited by Banananana: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 - 21:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 22:09
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Anyone ever had any problems uploading onto POPLA website....?
keep getting 'application error' and 'please try again'
but never works
anyone know a solution...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Fri, 20 Dec 2019 - 21:54
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Anyone who got here by searching after having trouble submitting a document via POPLA web portal - and found my comment above - have a word with POPLA over the phone & you can submit a document by email, seems file size could be the issue causing the error message I kept getting
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Thu, 26 Dec 2019 - 18:31
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Hi All & Merry Xmas / Happy New Year!
So after POPLA submission, and ECP providing their evidence, I have done some research & written my rebuttal, I think I've got it fairly well dealt with, but still find this stuff a bit overwhelming. If anyone has a chance to look over, I'd be very grateful..! Thanks!
Evidence from ECP:

QUOTE
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
Evidence Contents

1. Case Summary and Rule/Conditions
2. Copy of Notice To Keeper (NTK) sent to the registered keeper’s address
3. Registered Keeper details and Liability Trail
4. Original representation sent by Lord [ANON]
5. ECP notice of rejection to appeal
6. ECP response to POPLA appeal logged by Mr [ANON]
7. Signage location plan and images of signage onsite
Amount received (if any) £0
Amount of full Parking Charge £ [RIDICULOUS]
I confirm that the Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with current POPLA requirements


Mr [ANON] Vs Euro Car Parks

Breach of Terms and Conditions – The vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction

Please find enclosed the evidence pack:
1. (B) Case Summary and Rules/Conditions
2. © Copy of Parking Charge Notice
3. (D) Registered Keeper Details and Liability Trail
4. (E i) Original representation received from Mrs [ANON]
5. (E ii) ECP Notice of Rejection
6. (G) ECP response to the POPLA appeal logged by Dr [ANON]
7. (F ) Signage Location Plan and images of Car Park


1. Case Summary and Rule/Conditions
This location is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which
takes a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, these pictures are timed and therefore the duration of the stay can be calculated. All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced. After requesting vehicle keeper details from the DVLA, a Notice to keeper is sent to the keepers of the vehicles on this list. As a consequence at ANPR locations there will be no PCN issued to the windscreen neither will there be photographic evidence of the windscreen supplied in operator evidence packs.

Parking Charge Notice * was issued to vehicle [ANON] for breach of terms and conditions:
The vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction at [ANON] .
[ANON] car park operates an ANPR + Pay by Phone camera controlled
operation.
An official appeal representation was received on the something of 2019 where Mr [ANON]
stated that he was not the driver.
Euro Car Parks then responded:

*** COPY OF APPEAL REJECTION ***
*** COPY OF NTK ***

3. Registered Keeper details and Liability Trail
As the car park is camera controlled the vehicle details were forwarded to the DVLA to obtain the registered keepers details. The DVLA had provided the following details as the registered keeper.
Emperor [ANON]
Castle [ANON]

Mr [ANON] then appealed the PCN and declined to provide the details of the driver on the day
in question. Therefore, the liability of the notice remains with Mr [ANON], the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Our PCN (Parking Charge Notice) is the first communication with the registered keeper – this is referred to as the Notice to Keeper or Notice To Owner

The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by both the BPA and the IPC and we have confirmation
that our PCN (NTK/NTO) and has been approved as compliant with POFA

The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by Gladstones Solicitors who specialise in assisting
private car park operators – legal advice and pre legal advice with regards signage and adhering to POFA and both code of practice

Please be advised once the registered keeper has been sent the PCN (NTK/NTO) if there is no
response, payment, appeal, serviceable address of the driver – ECP process a Notice To Keeper – this is a “reminder letter” and sent in reference to the PCN (NTK/NTO) that has not been responded to.

If we are in receipt of a serviceable address of the driver – the PCN (NTK/NTO) is re-issued
If the registered keeper is in receipt of the PCN (NTK/NTO) and has passed to the driver and the driver appeals – we will respond to the appeal strictly following the code and ensure any/all communication is sent to the driver (we would not at this stage re-issue the PCN)

We have been advised that the above is standard practice for all private car park operators in regards to PCN (NTK/NTO) issued on Automatic Number Plate Recognition car parks

*** COPY OF APPEAL ***

6. ECP response to POPLA appeal logged by Mr [ANON]
This location is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which
takes a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, these pictures are timed and therefore the duration of the stay can be calculated. All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced. After requesting vehicle keeper details from the DVLA, a Notice to keeper is sent to the keepers of the vehicles on this list. As a consequence at ANPR locations there will be no PCN issued to the windscreen neither will there be photographic evidence of the windscreen supplied in operator evidence packs.

Parking Charge Notice * was issued to vehicle [ANON] for breach of terms and conditions:
The vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction at [ANON] . The car
park operates an ANPR + Pay by Phone camera controlled operation.

Statement: Mr [ANON] stated the following:
-
- PCN issued incorrectly
POFA

Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) code of practice explains that signs
“must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to
see, read and understand. Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the driver’s responsibility to read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the terms and conditions as stated. Euro Car Parks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant remained at the site for 3 hours and 28 minutes. (Figure 1)
The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, all drivers are required
to adhere to the terms and conditions.
Signage is visble when entering and inside of the car park and when entering private
land it would be the driver’s responsibilty to read the terms and conditions and adhere
to them. (Figure 2 – See Section 7).
Please see the below payment; the Pay by Phone session did not cover the full duration
of parking:

*** table of pay by phone transactions ***

According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a
reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended;
before enforcement action is taken. 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.
Any form of parking ticket or ‘notice’ is issued under the law ‘of trespass and Contract Law’. A
driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and
pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.

Figure 3 confirms that the NTK is PoFA compliant.

Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are effectively image processing and micro-
processor devices with an internal reference clock based around a set of components referred
to as the ‘Real Time Clock chipset’ or RTC. The chipset uses a quartz crystal reference source
and will provide a reliable time reference dependant on a drift characteristic determined by
variations in local camera temperature. High fluctuations in local ambient can cause the RTC
to drift as much as 30 seconds a month and to counteract this an NTP server is utilised. The
Pay by Phone Only NTP server is effectively a computer situated in a control room and takes a reference time source from a GPS satellite and provides a hyper accurate time reference. All camera systems operated by ECP are configured to request a time synchronisation from the NTP on a sixty second basis. This ensures that all cameras have a universal time reference which is accurate to a few thousandths of a second. Cameras also report a ‘heartbeat’ to our back office environment, again on a sixty second basis, and this is used to establish camera operation; logs of these transactions from all cameras are retained for approximately six months. On capture of an ANPR read this is transmitted to a similar back office environment where the time difference between that tagged on the raw capture and the ‘real time’ of the servers is again tested.
All ANPR cameras used by ECP are compliant under the home office approval framework as
stated under NAAS/NASP.

Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the
registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and UK Serviceable address
within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount
remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’),
Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle
at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.
The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) does not alter the principle of driver liability.
What it does do, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking
charges when the landowner or their agent, the parking operator does not know who the
driver was at the time.
The creditor/operator must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve
the benefits of keeper liability.

*** ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF VEHICLE ***
*** PHOTOGRAPHS OF SIGNAGE ***
*** GENERIC NTK EXAMPLE ***
*** MAP OF SIGN LOCATIONS ***
*** 10 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SIGNAGE AROUND CAR PARK ***


And the rebuttal:(I'm thinking its maybe unnecessary to quote PoFA 2012 again in here...?)

QUOTE
POPLA Appeal - Evidence pack rebuttal

Rebuttal of evidence pack received from Euro Car Parks Ltd.

In response to the evidence pack Euro Car Parks Ltd have submitted, I have written my reply in the same order Euro Car Parks Ltd has laid out their response. In making their assessment, I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on ?/?/2019.

1) Euro Car Parks Ltd Case Summary

Within the case summary provided, Euro Car Parks Ltd are unable to state the period of parking to which the case relates, which is a requirement of paragraph 9(2)(a) from Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for their Notice to Keeper.

Euro Car Parks Ltd state that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology takes a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, but these pictures of a vehicle moving in front of a camera are not able to define the start or end of a singular parking period, and are also unable to definitively state how many parking periods there were, and do not take into account any grace periods.

The case summary also states that Euro Car Parks Ltd do not know the details of the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the period of parking in question, which is still undefined.

2) Euro Car Parks Ltd ‘Notice to Keeper’

Euro Car Parks Ltd have supplied a copy of their Notice to Keeper, which demonstrates the lack of compliance to the BPA Code of Practice in relation to 20.5a: “A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered”

As can be seen on the Notice to Keeper copy, the date and time stamp are not on the photographs provided, and these photographs have been digitally altered by editing / cropping of the original images. These original photographs (evidence pack - section 6, figure 1) were not provided in the ‘Notice to Keeper’ issued by Euro Car Parks.

This copy of Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper also clearly shows the multiple failures in relation to the requirements Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which are detailed in the next section below.

3) Registered Keeper details and liability

Euro Car Parks Ltd state that after obtaining the Registered Keepers details from the DVLA, “Mr [ANON] then appealed the PCN and declined to provide the details of the driver on the day in question. Therefore, the liability of the notice remains with Mr [ANON], the registered keeper of the vehicle”.

However, despite their claim that the liability somehow remains with the Registered Keeper by default without knowledge of the Drivers details, there are in fact strict statutory conditions that must be met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist. For the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s Registered Keeper, there are exact wording requirements for a Notice to Keeper which are set out and defined within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which has not been complied with in this case.

Euro Car Parks Ltd are claiming that “The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by both the BPA and the IPC and we have confirmation that our PCN (NTK/NTO) and has been approved as compliant with POFA”. However, as can be seen in the Evidence Pack section 2, their ‘Notice to Keeper’ has failed with the exact wording requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 with respect to paragraphs 9(2)(b), 9(2)(e), 9(2)(f), and 9(2)(i).

__________________


From the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4 (1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and

6 (1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—

(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

_____________



4) Copy of Registered Keepers Appeal to ECP

This appeal states that the Registered Keeper is under no legal obligation to name the Driver at the time of the event in question.

5) ECP notice of rejection to appeal

In their rejection, Euro Car Parks Ltd fail to address the point made in the appeal to them, that they have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, by failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act.

The photograph of the parking terms sign, provided with the rejection, shows how small the font is which has been used for the sentence regarding the charge for unauthorised parking. For clear and adequate notice of terms, such a small font is not suitable to be sufficiently readable and noticeable in order to form a contract with the Driver from the perspective of the driving seat of a vehicle.

Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 states in paragraph 2 (3) “For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by—

(b) ...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.” The photograph of the sign shows that in relation to the font size of all of the other wording on the sign, the charge for unauthorised parking is amongst the smallest fonts used, and has no prominence in the context of the entirety of the sign. The sign does state very prominently that “parking is free via validation for the **** guests...” without stating how to acquire validation.

6) ECP response to POPLA appeal logged by Mr [ANON]

(Page 12) Euro Car Parks admit that “The creditor/operator must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve the benefits of keeper liability”

(Page 11) States that “Figure 3 confirms that the NTK is PoFA compliant.”, however, this generic version of their Notice to Keeper (Page 15, figure 3) that is referred to, shows the following failures of compliance with PoFA, (in order, from top to bottom of image):

Date issued: Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post), but instead states date of issue.

4th paragraph: It states “You are notified under the paragraph 9(2)(b)...” However, this does not comply with the exact wording requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9(2)(b).

5th paragraph: It states “This notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f)...” However, this does not comply with the exact wording requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9(2)(f).

Also shown within the image is the failure to comply with the BPA CoP:

Entry and Exit times: Contrary to the BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a: date and time stamp written underneath photograph, and not included within as required.

Euro Car Parks Evidence Pack has failed to show any evidence of any kind whatsoever, of authority from the landowner to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park.


This post has been edited by Banananana: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 - 18:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 26 Dec 2019 - 20:19
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



You've only got 2,000 characters, not words, to rebut the PPC's evidence. You've used 8,872 characters, so some major surgery required. Cut out any waffle, repetition of what you've already said in your POPLA appeal, use bullet points rather than leggy sentences, leave out unnecessary punctuation and line spacing. Every press of a key on your keypad eats into your 2,000 limit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 00:04
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



Hi Umkomaas,
and thanks for your reply!
Oh, hadn't noticed that...! Never done this before - thought I had the chance to upload another document...!?
Will edit it down then...
thanks for your help..!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 09:50
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
thought I had the chance to upload another document...


Also to note, you cannot put forward any evidence/new appeal points that were not previously covered in you original POPLA appeal, so don't waste characters on anything that will be disregarded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 13:53
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 09:50) *
QUOTE
thought I had the chance to upload another document...


Also to note, you cannot put forward any evidence/new appeal points that were not previously covered in you original POPLA appeal, so don't waste characters on anything that will be disregarded.


oh, just finished editing down to 2000 characters before I saw your comment...
do you mean I should go through and delete anything already in the appeal...?

QUOTE
Response to ECP evidence (in same order)

1) ECP are unable to state a parking period to which the case relates, (PoFA para 9(2)(a) requirement for NtK)

ECP state ANPR technology takes a picture of vehicles entering & exiting the site, pictures of vehicles moving in front of camera do not define the start or end of a singular parking period, nor define how many parking periods there were

2) ECP NtK: BPA CoP, 20.5a non compliance: no date & time stamps on photos, altered/cropped from original images: see sect. 6, fg 1: these not in NtK

3) ECP state: Registered Keeper appealed, declining to provide driver details; “therefore, the liability of the notice remains with... the RK...” There are in fact strict statutory conditions that must be met by the operator, otherwise the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist. They claim their NTK has been checked by BPA & IPC for POFA compliance; in fact, their NtK fails with the exact wording requirements of Sched 4 of the PoFA 2012 - paras 9(2)(b), 9(2)(e), 9(2)(f), & 9(2)(i) Therefore they have no right to recover unpaid parking charges from RK

5) ECP appeal rejection: fails to address that the NtK does not give the invitation to keeper in format prescribed by sect. 9(2)(e) of PoFA

Contrary to ‘adequate notice’ definition in Sched 4 of PoFA para 2(3): Parking terms sign photo shows the small font used for ‘unauthorised parking charge’ sentence which is not suitable to be sufficiently readable/noticeable to form a contract with a Driver & in relation to all other wording on whole sign, is given no prominence. Sign does state prominently that parking is free via validation for guests, without stating how to validate.

6) ECP fails to show any evidence of authority from the landowner to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park

Pg 11- States “Fg 3 confirms that the NTK is PoFA compliant” this generic NtK (Pg 15, fig 3) again shows failures of compliance with PoFA Para 9(2)(b), 9(2)(f), & 9(2)(i), & BPA CoP 20.5a

p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; }

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 14:07
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
oh, just finished editing down to 2000 characters before I saw your comment...
do you mean I should go through and delete anything already in the appeal...?

Any brand new point not already in the appeal will be disregarded by POPLA.

You can save lots of characters by ditching most of the punctuation and parentheses that you've unnecessarily added. That will give you a bit of room if you feel you've been squeezed out of anything you wished to state.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 17:58
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,895



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 14:07) *
Any brand new point not already in the appeal will be disregarded by POPLA.

You can save lots of characters by ditching most of the punctuation and parentheses that you've unnecessarily added. That will give you a bit of room if you feel you've been squeezed out of anything you wished to state.


Thanks for your help Umkomaas!
I'm not sure I've got too much in there that is new - perhaps except for:
QUOTE
Contrary to ‘adequate notice’ definition in Sched 4 of PoFA para 2(3): Parking terms sign photo shows the small font used for ‘unauthorised parking charge’ sentence which is not suitable to be sufficiently readable/noticeable to form a contract with a Driver & in relation to all other wording on whole sign, is given no prominence. Sign does state prominently that parking is free via validation for guests, without stating how to validate.


which is similar to a point made in appeal, but I thought I made the point a little better here, plus added the part about parking is free for guests.
I had understood previously that the way to approach this was to go through point by point with the operators evidence and offer a rebuttal to every point - but then - this includes making the same points as in the appeal in most places.

The other aspect was that I wanted to show how the evidence they've supplied supports my appeal - e.g. they include in evidence pack the NtK and a generic version of their NtK, and I've re-iterated the point that both fail to comply with PoFA...
I presume it wouldn't do any harm to leave those in...? Or you recommend definitely not repeating any points already made in the appeal...?
Thanks again!

This post has been edited by Banananana: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 - 00:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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 - 13:55
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