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 (40 - 45)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 00:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 18:16
Post #41


Member


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



QUOTE (Banananana @ Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 18:58) *
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 POPLA...
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!

You need to rebut anything they say that you disagree with whether or not you covered it in your POPLA appeal. What I meant was you just don't repeat (regurgitate) what you've already written in your POPLA appeal, as those paras tend to be very wordy.

In terms of adding new evidence, I wouldn't read the point about the signage you raised above as being new evidence. New evidence would be anything about which nothing whatsoever was previously mentioned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Sat, 28 Dec 2019 - 11:18
Post #42


Member


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



Ok, thanks again for your help Umkomaas!
QUOTE (Banananana @ Fri, 27 Dec 2019 - 13:53) *
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




So I think I'm going to go ahead with this (as above) as my rebuttal, the only problem is, is that in their evidence, section 6, they state again
QUOTE
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.

which is a similar/same point already dealt with in my rebuttal in sect. 3 - but I've run out of my 2000 characters to make the point again, but I'm presuming I don't have to make the same point twice..?
Thanks again all!

This post has been edited by Banananana: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 - 11:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 18:54
Post #43


Member


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



Success..!
QUOTE
Your appeal was successful
As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action.

Thanks very much to all here who have helped me, much appreciation!

Would it be of use to post here for people the details of the decision....? Basically, as the operator didn't provide any evidence of landowner authority, POPLA upheld my appeal, the other points were then not considered. Strangely they include this line: "I am satisfied that they identified themselves as the driver of the vehicle" - when I did no such thing as far as I'm concerned, but no matter, case closed..!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 09:04
Post #44


Member


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



Yes, please do!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banananana
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 11:40
Post #45


Member


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



QUOTE
Decision Successful

QUOTE
Assessor summary of operator case The operator’s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to the vehicle was parked without a valid pay by phone transaction.

QUOTE
Assessor summary of your case The appellant has advised that the Notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that section 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “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 appellant has advised that the parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp on the photographs nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park .The appellant has advised the time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the photographs. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate The appellant has advised that there is no evidence of period parked. The appellant has advised that there is no evidence of landowner Authority. The appellant has advised that there is unclear signage, no contract with driver, no adequate notice of the charge. The appellant has advised that there was not grace period allowed. The appellant has advised that

QUOTE
Assessor supporting rational for decision After reviewing the evidence and comments provided by the appellant, I am satisfied that they identified themselves as the driver of the vehicle, therefore my report will focus on the driver’s liability. The operator issued a PCN due to the vehicle was parked without a valid pay by phone transaction. The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal however my report will focus on the ground where the appellant has advised that the operator has failed to show authority that allows them to operate and issue tickets on the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site 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”. In this instance, I consider it reasonable that the operator would provide a copy of either a contract or witness statement to show it held authority on the date of the alleged parking contravention, as the operator has not provided this, I cannot determine whether or not the operator had the authority from the landowner to issue this PCN. I can only conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.



re: I am satisfied that they identified themselves as the driver of the vehicle
- really do not understand why that was written... I put nothing in my appeal that claimed who the driver was, as far as I am concerned






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 11:50
Post #46


Member


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



Theyve done this a couple times now.
POPLA assessors arent competenet.
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 - 06:14
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