PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro Car Parks Newbury, need help with POPLA please
limpet
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 20:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,279



RK is at the stage of needing to submit a POPLA appeal, would really appreciate having some advice from all you experienced fighters! Thanks so much to everyone who can help in advance!

Incident of 'overstaying by 20 mins' took place Sun 7 July and was calculated via ANPR photo timings. RK received PCN as a NTK (image hopefully below) from ECP by post, letter is dated 17 July and received Sat 20 July. PCN appears to fulfil requirements of POFA, but I am not an expert so would appreciate if someone could cast an eye over before RK sends the appeal to POPLA!

RK submitted an online appeal to ECP on 22 July saying RK refuses to disclose the driver and asking for more evidence, as suggested at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822. ECP denied the appeal via email on 15 Aug and sent photos and record of the payment that was made (images of all info ECP sent hopefully below)

RK has not submitted a complaint to the retailer, because the car park is behind a high street with many shops and there is no single retailer who would be connected with that car park. This is a paid car park, not free, charges are £1 per hour 24 hrs a day.

What do you guys think is the best approach for POPLA? I reckon the best grounds is 'The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. This is because, being a Sunday afternoon, the few shops that are open shut around 4pm, so the car park was practically empty at that time, so there cannot have been any material loss to anyone's business other than an extra £1 for car parking.

I'm not sure if the grace period is sufficient grounds, as there are 5 mins between entry camera timestamp and purchasing ticket, and 15 mins between end of 3 hours and exit camera timestamp.

I will be heading there soon to take a picture of the signage as well, and will post picture here if I think there's valid grounds.

Does anyone have any advice for me at this stage? I will post a draft of the appeal to POPLA here shortly, but would appreciate any preliminary thoughts anyone might have. Thank you thank you! (and apologies for any newbie mistakes !)

NTK1:
NTK2:

ECP appeal denied 1:
ECP appeal denied 2:
ECP appeal denied 3:
ECP appeal denied 4:

This post has been edited by limpet: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 20:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 20:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 20:39
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



POPLA will say the charge is correctly issued. Loss is dead with them since Beavis.

You can throw a kitchen sink appeal at them (exclude loss) and they may not contest.

...but they are not litigious.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 21:34
Post #3


Member


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



No invitation to keeper 9 2 e

No period of parking 9 2 a. Time moving in front of a camera cannot by definition be parking

Grace periods of 10 minutes each side of oarking
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 07:18
Post #4


Member


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



Indeed id go for grace periods.

Was this pay and display or free parking? IF and ONLY IF it was payment parking then the period of parking BEGAN when the contract was formed which was when payment was mae. NOT when the vehicle passed cameras. This further reduces the time of 20min.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
limpet
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 20:50
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,279



Thank you Jlc, ostell and nosferatu1001.

So, let's go for grace period then. But how exactly is the grace period calculated? ECP have provided a payment timestamp of let's say 14:00. This means the contract started at 14:00. If the payer paid for 3 hours, then the expiry time would be 17:00. The exit photo of the moving car was taken at 17:15. Therefore this is 15 mins after the expiry time, not 10 minutes. Will the appeal on grounds of grace period still stand given this?

In case it makes a difference, the difference of time between the entry photo and the payment timestamp is 2 minutes. So if there is a total 20 mins grace, then I can see that we would have a case, but if there's only 10 mins either side then I'm not so sure. Hope that helps!

Can anyone put my mind at ease? Appreciate any advice, many thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
limpet
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 23:28
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,279



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 08:18) *
Indeed id go for grace periods.

Was this pay and display or free parking? IF and ONLY IF it was payment parking then the period of parking BEGAN when the contract was formed which was when payment was mae. NOT when the vehicle passed cameras. This further reduces the time of 20min.


This was pay and display, £1 per hour 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
limpet
post Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 00:40
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,279



Ok unfortunately I've been out of the country and so the POPLA date for appeal has expired. Therefore I'm proposing to send this directly to ECP as a "challenge" letter. Covering letter included at the beginning too. The challenge is worded the same as other POPLA wording on this forum and Martin Lewis forum.

Please would you experienced fighters take a look and let me know with any thoughts or changes? Thank you all so much!

====

[Your address]
[Parking company address]

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Reference: [Parking Charge Notice number:
Date of issue:
Vehicle registration:]

I am writing to formally challenge the above Parking Charge Notice.

On [date] my vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice for the reason of ‘the permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking'.

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur. Below find my grounds for challenging this parking charge.

I look forward to receiving notification within 28 days that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
[name and signature]

===

Grounds for Challenge

1) No evidence of period parked
2) Grace periods have not been applied
3) The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye v Beavis
4) No landowner authority
5) Lack of signage- unclear signage
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No evidence of period parked
The Notice to Keeper clearly states that the alleged overstay has been calculated on the basis of ANPR entry and exit timestamps. PoFA2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks 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. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 3 hours and 20 minutes.

2) Grace periods have not been applied
Euro Car Parks has not fully complied with Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, i.e. the provision of ‘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. The alleged 20 minutes overstay therefore is cancelled out, leaving no parking charge due.

3) The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye v Beavis
The car park in question is a paid car park. This is distinguished from the Beavis & Wardley cases, as both those cases dealt with free car parks. ECP are charging £1.00 per hour. The driver had paid £3.00 for a three hour stay. Without prejudice, even if the driver had overstayed by 20 minutes as alleged, had they been aware that they could have paid for an extra hour before leaving the car park, and the additional cost to them would have been £1.00. As ruled in the case of of ParkingEye Vs Cargius (2014) therefore, the charge of £85 is totally disproportionate to ECP’s loss, is therefore a penalty, and is therefore unenforceable in this case.

4) No landowner Authority:

The on-site signage states in small text (illegible from a vehicle driving in/out of the site) that ECP are acting 'on behalf of' “The Landlord”; this specific wording indicates the operator has no right to sue in their own name. Under the law of agency, a contract to be made by an agent 'on behalf of' a disclosed principal is considered to be the contract of that named principal, the latter retaining control/liability. Euro Car Parks are not a party to the alleged contract formed between a driver and principal (landlord) and they cannot enforce it in their own name.

I put the operator to strict proof of their landowner contract (a complete, unredacted and contemporaneous disclosure), to include proof that they have the right in their name, to 'enforce charges in the courts if necessary'. Anything less is not only a breach of the BPA CoP Para 7, but renders the parking firm with no standing, with no more powers than any other standard contractor over visitors to the land.

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 landlord. 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 paid 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 a 20 minute overstay 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 nor the 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.

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 was no conspicuous display of the parking charge 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 mention of the parking charge; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. This contravenes Schedule 4 of the POFA which requires 'adequate notice of the charge' as a matter of statute.

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, the terms regarding a punitive ‘parking charge’ are not visible from a car seat before parking. The words relating to the ‘parking charge’ are only readable from close up, are less than half the height of the ‘normal’ hourly charges, and are 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 signs failed to make any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent for exceeding the paid stay.

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 the vehicle in question. The vehicle is clearly not parked at the time, in fact in one image it is clearly signalling to turn. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. It is therefore unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival. 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 of the vehicle 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 allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times, 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 09:01
Post #8


Member


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



Have you tried to upload it? Codes last for 33 days

It isnt a single 20 min period, it is one of 10 at the end at least

Why was there 15 mionutes to leave parking?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 10:22
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (limpet @ Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 01:40) *
2) Grace periods have not been applied
Euro Car Parks has not fully complied with Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, i.e. the provision of ‘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. The alleged 20 minutes overstay therefore is cancelled out, leaving no parking charge due.

You need to read the CoP properly, that isn't what it says at all.

It requires 'a' grace period at the start and a total grace period of 10 minutes on parking (Noting, driving past the camera isn't being parked so for a short excess you can argue that time parked didn't exceed the grace period, better still if you can do a dummy run to check those timings).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
limpet
post Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 20:03
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,279



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 10:01) *
Have you tried to upload it? Codes last for 33 days

It isnt a single 20 min period, it is one of 10 at the end at least

Why was there 15 mionutes to leave parking?


Ha, well the driver reached the car in time, however then received an international phone call from family who live far away. Driver decided to take the call in case it was an emergency. Then lost track of time - and didn't expect the car park to be militant. Mistake not to be repeated.

I seriously doubt the code will work - it's a lot more than 33 days late.

This post has been edited by limpet: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 20:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
limpet
post Fri, 1 Nov 2019 - 22:15
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,279



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 11:22) *
QUOTE (limpet @ Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 01:40) *
2) Grace periods have not been applied
Euro Car Parks has not fully complied with Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, i.e. the provision of ‘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. The alleged 20 minutes overstay therefore is cancelled out, leaving no parking charge due.

You need to read the CoP properly, that isn't what it says at all.

It requires 'a' grace period at the start and a total grace period of 10 minutes on parking (Noting, driving past the camera isn't being parked so for a short excess you can argue that time parked didn't exceed the grace period, better still if you can do a dummy run to check those timings).


Thanks Rookie. I've removed the point about the grace period now, as it's not the strongest point. Updated grounds for challenge below. Does anyone else have any thoughts please before I send it?

Thanks everyone so much!

Grounds for Challenge

1) No evidence of period parked
2) The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye v Beavis
3) No landowner authority
4) Lack of signage- unclear signage
5) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No evidence of period parked.
The Notice to Keeper clearly states that the alleged overstay has been calculated on the basis of ANPR entry and exit timestamps. 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. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 3 hours and 20 minutes.


2) The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye v Beavis
The car park in question is a paid car park. This is distinguished from the Beavis & Wardley cases, as both those cases dealt with free car parks. ECP are charging £1.00 per hour. The driver had paid £3.00 for a three hour stay. Without prejudice, even if the driver had overstayed by 15 minutes as alleged, and had they been aware that they could have paid for an extra hour before leaving the car park, the additional cost to them would have been £1.00. As ruled in the case of of ParkingEye Vs Cargius (2014) therefore, the charge of £85 is totally disproportionate to ECP’s loss, is therefore a penalty, and is therefore unenforceable in this case.

3) No landowner Authority:

The on-site signage states in small text (illegible from a vehicle driving in/out of the site) that ECP are acting 'on behalf of' “The Landlord”; this specific wording indicates the operator has no right to sue in their own name. Under the law of agency, a contract to be made by an agent 'on behalf of' a disclosed principal is considered to be the contract of that named principal, the latter retaining control/liability. Euro Car Parks are not a party to the alleged contract formed between a driver and principal (landlord) and they cannot enforce it in their own name.

I put the operator to strict proof of their landowner contract (a complete, unredacted and contemporaneous disclosure), to include proof that they have the right in their name, to 'enforce charges in the courts if necessary'. Anything less is not only a breach of the BPA CoP Para 7, but renders the parking firm with no standing, with no more powers than any other standard contractor over visitors to the land.

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 landlord. 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 paid 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 a 20 minute overstay 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.

4) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge.

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.

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 was no conspicuous display of the parking charge 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 mention of the parking charge; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. This contravenes Schedule 4 of the POFA which requires 'adequate notice of the charge' as a matter of statute.

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, the terms regarding a punitive ‘parking charge’ are not visible from a car seat before parking. The words relating to the ‘parking charge’ are only readable from close up, are less than half the height of the ‘normal’ hourly charges, and are 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 signs failed to make any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent for exceeding the paid stay.

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 the vehicle in question. The vehicle is clearly not parked at the time, in fact in one image it is clearly signalling to turn. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. It is therefore unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival. 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 of the vehicle cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 11:26
Post #12


Member


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



Frankly they will jus tignore it
I dont know why youre sending anything - youve already appealed to ECP and they rejected it, and you then chose not to appeal to POPLA in time.

Just hold tight. File but ignore anything short of a LBA or court claim form.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
limpet
post Tue, 5 Nov 2019 - 20:53
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,279



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 12:26) *
Frankly they will jus tignore it
I dont know why youre sending anything - youve already appealed to ECP and they rejected it, and you then chose not to appeal to POPLA in time.

Just hold tight. File but ignore anything short of a LBA or court claim form.


Thanks nosferatu. TBH it's because I have a nervous spouse who is worrying about it - but I'm determined to stick it out. Will hold tight as you suggest. Will post if anything else happens. Thank you !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 09:19
Post #14


Member


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



Nope, you will go ahead and read up on what CAN happen next, so you are prepared.
Dont be passive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:22
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