PCN from Euro Car Parks Options

[carlm90]

Hi everyone, I return to this wonderful forum after a break of receiving PCNs... it served me well last time so thank you in advance! I have recently received a PCN for staying over the 30 minute period of parking. A few things...

During my stay in this car park:

- Shops on lockdown, only essential shops open, I visited and spent over £40 in a transaction. This shop was local to the car park and served the shops in the area.
- Car park used a machine that was coin operated. I wasn't intent on pressing any of the buttons on it to pay for parking and they provided no sanitising options for the buttons

Is there an updated letter to include Coronavirus considerations?

If not I'll send them the normal template with my receipts for purchases in local shops, so they didn't loose any money.

I've included the PCN here:



This post has been edited by carlm90: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 - 15:05

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

Get in that the assessor appears to be mistakenly using POFA 13 for the operator/hirer relationship.

[carlm90]

Get in that the assessor appears to be mistakenly using POFA 13 for the operator/hirer relationship.

Have added below, thanks. Good to go?

To John Gallagher,

I write to you to make representation about a failure of the POPLA system and I am urgently asking you to reassess this appeal.

I recently appealed a PCN that I received from Euro Car Parks and the appeal was unsuccessful. The assessor name for my case was Paul Garrity and I believe he has made a procedural error by not acknowledging my appeal point of there being no hirer liability.

This appeal must be allowed because the operator Euro Car Parks failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which is relevant to the hirer and operator. The assessor appears to be mistakenly using POFA 13 for the operator/hirer relationship. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle and potentially liable for the charge. I have referred to the right to not name the name and keeper liability. A notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on DATE, this was after a PCN was issued to the hire company on DATE. The operator has failed to provide evidence which shows that the appellant had signed a statement of liability when he hired the vehicle and that this was sent along with the PCN. The assessor has completely ignored the requirement to supply the hire agreement and notice to keeper with the notice to hirer.

The assessor has used the phrase “registered hirer” in their response, I would ask what meaning does this have in the context of this case as it is not clear as to what he means. The registered hirer could not possibly be the registered keeper as this role is taken by the hire company, more clarity is needed by the assessor and I would hasten to say more training. I feel that the lead assessor in this matter has erred in the interpretation of law, it must be reviewed and the decision amended to one of an upholding of the appeal.

This post has been edited by carlm90: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 - 12:54

[Umkomaas]

Go with it.

[carlm90]

Go with it.

Submitted, I will post the reply here.

[carlm90]

Go with it.

Submitted, I will post the reply here.

It’s taken this long to get a complaint reply.

Here it is:

Your complaint about POPLA

Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the lead adjudicator, as I am responsible for responding to POPLA complaints.

Firstly, I would like to start by apologising for the delays in responding to your complaint. Due to the complexity of the complaint it was referred for advice which has resulted in a delay in the response.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Euro Car Parks.

POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service and we do not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is important to explain that POPLA is a one-stage process and we would not change a decision because either party disputes the assessor’s decision. However, we may consider an appeal if there has been a procedural error, for example – if we failed to allow a motorist to comment on a parking operator’s evidence pack.

You state that the assessor has made a procedural error as he has not acknowledged your point of there being no hirer liability. You state that the operator failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with paragraph 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 which is relevant to the hirer and operator. You say that the assessor has mistakenly used section 13 of PoFA 2012 and within your appeal you highlighted the right to not name and keeper liability. You say that a notice to hirer was sent on 11 June 2020 and was issued to the hire company on 27 May 2020 and the operator has failed to provide evidence which shows that the appellant had a signed statement of liability when he hired the vehicle. You say that the assessor completely ignored this requirement. You state that the assessor has used the phrase ‘registered hirer’ in his response which is unclear what he means. You state that more clarity is needed by the assessor and more training.

I note within your grounds of appeal you stated:

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

You raised concerns about hirer liability. As you have not identified as the driver, the operator can only seek to hold you responsible for the PCN under hirer liability.

Having reviewed the operator’s evidence, I can see that the operator is holding you responsible for the PCN. In its evidence it states that you identified as the driver, then you declined to identify the driver, so it is holding you responsible as hirer. I also note that you did not identify as the driver.

As such the assessor was required to review the relevant sections of PoFA2012 that applied.


Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA 2012 states:
“(2) The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;”



Paragraph 13 (2) OF PoFA 2012 states:

“The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

©a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.”



Having viewed the operator’s evidence I can see that the operator has not provided any documents.



The assessor within their grounds of appeal was satisfied that hirer liability was met when assessing this appeal. Whilst this is not the decision I would have made personally; the assessor has considered all evidence and ultimately made an incorrect judgement call. The assessor has not made a procedural error and as such the case would not need reassessing.



I have taken your feedback on board and forwarded this to the assessor’s team leader for coaching purposes and have upheld this complaint.

As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

As our involvement in your appeal has now concluded you may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Smith
POPLA Complaints Team

So did they uphold my complaint or not, I can’t make head or tail of it.

This post has been edited by carlm90: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 12:44

[Jlc]

So they are saying the assessor came to the wrong decision but they are not going to change it.

[carlm90]

So they are saying the assessor came to the wrong decision but they are not going to change it.

That’s what I thought it read, I’m baffled.

How does that work?

[The Rookie]

I'd complain again, it's clearly ludicrous, we got it wrong, we know we got it wrong, but we aren't going to fix it.

I have seen similar where they overturn the original outcome and order the PPC to drop the matter.

You could complain t the BPA about how there IAS is handling it, you could also copy DVLA in on this complaint.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 13:35

[carlm90]

I'd complain again, it's clearly ludicrous, we got it wrong, we know we got it wrong, but we aren't going to fix it.

I have seen similar where they overturn the original outcome and order the PPC to drop the matter.

You could complain t the BPA about how there IAS is handling it, you could also copy DVLA in on this complaint.

I don’t know how it’s acceptable to admit you’re wrong but not change the outcome.

I phoned them and they said because it’s not a procedural error, they won’t change the outcome.

[Umkomaas]

Lots of their reasoning, even their sentence constructions don't make much sense, let alone 'we got it wrong, but stuff you, we'll still leave you high and dry'.

Their days are numbered with the introduction of the new Code of Practice - not before time given this rubbish. They can then get back to nail polishing, call centre battery pods and adult literature writing!

[Jlc]

It's the so called 'one stage process'.

There's no 'appeal' on the basis of an error, however obvious.

It stinks.

[carlm90]

It's the so called 'one stage process'.

There's no 'appeal' on the basis of an error, however obvious.

It stinks.

Indeed it does stink.

I’ve got enough going on in my life at the minute rather than dealing with this.

[carlm90]

Is it going to be pointless to appeal to POPLA again?

I'm trying to draft something to BPA and DVLA, do they have any power in this or are they just going to say seek legal advice?

I have my local CAB phoning me for 30 minutes of free legal advice in the next few days.

I wonder how this would be perceived at court

[Jlc]

I wonder how this would be perceived at court

You'll probably never know...

They are not very litigious and this 'ruling' doesn't help their case.

[ostell]

If it gets to court then you place that letter from POPLA in front of a judge

[carlm90]

I think I've done what I can re appealing this, I will just leave it to go to court if it ever gets there.

No point in fighting something that even when you're shown to be right, it doesn't matter because they say you're wrong

I will keep you updated.

This post has been edited by carlm90: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 - 15:54

[carlm90]

Debt passed to Zenith Collections and received my first letter about their intention to recover the debt.

[Jlc]

...about their intention to recover the debt.

How? Red ink and hollow threats?

[Umkomaas]

Debt passed to Zenith Collections and received my first letter about their intention to recover the debt.

Oh no, not Zenith! OMG! Do you have any idea just who they are?

Read the light grey, small print (normally at the bottom right of the letter). If you can't work it out and you're still worried, come back and tell us!

[carlm90]

I've heard nothing since December 2020 and yesterday I received another debt collection.

The debt sits at £170 with ZZPS.

This post has been edited by carlm90: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 - 18:32