Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Harmonyguru on May 27, 2024, 09:28:32 pm
-
Losing a POPLA appeal does not mean you have to pay the charge. If you feel strongly enough then you can fight it all the way to court, should it ever get that far. POPLA is not truly independent as it is funded by the BPA members and so they are looking out for their members interests at the end of the day.
A POPLA rejection has absolutely no bearing on any future claim, should it ever get that far.
-
So I need to stop worrying?
-
Even if it is not successful, it doesn't mean anything.
-
I apologise in advance to @b789 for choosing to keep in the 'no invitation to the keeper'. I just felt like if there was any chance something might get missed or the slightest chance POPLA still see it as noteworthy it would be worth keeping. Plus with the ambiguity of the address it helps to bolster this argument.
It is fairly obvious that you have not understood the point of PoFA compliance. PoFA only applies IF the drivers identity is unknown and remains so. You have already identified yourself to have also been the driver.
Lack of PoFA compliance can only help you if the drivers identity is unknown. The moment the drivers identity is revealed, PoFA ceases to apply. The drivers identity has been revealed by you. Therefore, what are you trying to achieve by claiming PoFA failures? They don't need to comply at all as they are not chasing you as the known keeper but as the known driver.
You can leave it is if you like but it will not help you in your appeal.
Yes you're right and the general consensus of everyone has been to not include this. Thank you for patience. I wasn't well when I posted this and I think I was just in a state of panic trying to say as much as I could. My only priority now is just making sure my first point is clear and worded in a way that gives me the best chance of success.
-
I apologise in advance to @b789 for choosing to keep in the 'no invitation to the keeper'. I just felt like if there was any chance something might get missed or the slightest chance POPLA still see it as noteworthy it would be worth keeping. Plus with the ambiguity of the address it helps to bolster this argument.
It is fairly obvious that you have not understood the point of PoFA compliance. PoFA only applies IF the drivers identity is unknown and remains so. You have already identified yourself to have also been the driver.
Lack of PoFA compliance can only help you if the drivers identity is unknown. The moment the drivers identity is revealed, PoFA ceases to apply. The drivers identity has been revealed by you. Therefore, what are you trying to achieve by claiming PoFA failures? They don't need to comply at all as they are not chasing you as the known keeper but as the known driver.
You can leave it is if you like but it will not help you in your appeal.
-
Okay, here it is. A link to my appeal. I apologise in advance to @b789 for choosing to keep in the 'no invitation to the keeper'. I just felt like if there was any chance something might get missed or the slightest chance POPLA still see it as noteworthy it would be worth keeping. Plus with the ambiguity of the address it helps to bolster this argument.
Note I have NOT sent this. I am still waiting to hear from the landowners in the hope I can have the charge removed.
POPLA APPEAL DRAFT (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pqub1yb25y2p12z0uixam/POPLA-APPEAL-2411454240-Edit.pdf?rlkey=4bg4dzuvbpnpgl4w480cu04xt&st=am6ccdsx&dl=0)
No such thing as bad criticism so don't be shy.
I will fully scrap point 3 on the failures of the NtK. I spent the last week hoping to contact the landowners to have the PCN cancelled getting as far as speaking with the agency who represent the landlord but sadly no luck. I know I am soon approaching the deadline for my POPLA appeal and so I just wanted to ask if upon reading my other points (particularly the first one) that I have made my points clear enough? I really want it be clear on the fault of their ANPR system so that the PCN is fairly cancelled.
-
OP, a quick skip through relevant law.
You posted: I do not have a copy as it was sent via Euro Car Parks website, I made this appeal the same day I received the letter. In this appeal, I did identify myself as the driver.
So, the NTK is now redundant as far as being a statutory notice but not as regards conveying the particulars of the creditor's claim for which there is no prescribed format as regards a claim against a driver for breach of contract.
Why?
Because a NTK is a creation of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 whose sole objective is to regulate how creditors may kick into touch the centuries-old legal principle that only the parties to a contract have rights and responsibilities under that contract by allowing the creditor to hold the keeper/hirer liable for breaches in lieu.
You do not fall into this category - because you have identified yourself as the liable party to the contract(AKA the driver) therefore it is a straightforward issue of whether the driver is liable to pay a parking charge to the creditor for breaching the terms of contract by which they were deemed bound by entering and parking on this private land. It is a matter pure and simple of contract law and POPLA's remit.
Of course there is common ground between PoFA and contract law, there's bound to be. But don't be fooled into thinking that aspects which are common fall to be considered under PoFA, they don't.
So, what were the terms of the contract into which you entered, was there a breach etc? These are the issues for POPLA.
But why POPLA you may ask if PoFA doesn't apply?
Because members of the BPA's AOS have signed up to this and the Code of Practice by virtue of their membership.
And as regards bp's assertion that the level of charge is an abuse of process, IMO this is not correct as each case turns on its own facts. However, it could be argued to be but IMO the issue at large is what additional charges if any could a creditor add to their claim while simply pursuing the driver for a breach of contract...the answer to which would require a detailed examination of the terms of that specific contract e.g. their clarity, fairness etc.
Is my view.
-
You cannot rely on PoFA if you have identified yourself to be the driver. If the driver is known, PoFA is irrelevant (at this stage).
If this ever got to court, you could rely on PoFA 4(5) because the claim would be for more than the original £100 which is an abuse of process. However, we are nowhere near that stage, if ever.
-
Anything that you are relying on to try and invoke no keeper liability due to non-compliance with PoFA is not going to work because the driver is already identified.
The fact that the address on the NtK does not match the location where the alleged breach of contract occurred should be argued on the basis of a breach of the ATA CoP that the PPC belongs to.
I cannot find anything on ATA CoP. If Euro Car Parks are a member of the British Parking Associations Approved Operators Scheme (AOS) then can I just reference the BPA CoP, specifically clause 21.12 relating to POFA 9(2)(a)?
-
Anything that you are relying on to try and invoke no keeper liability due to non-compliance with PoFA is not going to work because the driver is already identified.
The fact that the address on the NtK does not match the location where the alleged breach of contract occurred should be argued on the basis of a breach of the ATA CoP that the PPC belongs to.
-
Thank you @b789 and @DWMB2 it sounds like the consensus is to drop this point. Do I still include the point that the addresses on the NTK don't match the address of the parking location or is this also nullified by identifying the diver?
-
Without scouring back through the thread, if the driver was identified, inadvertently or otherwise, then there is no point mentioning no keeper liability because the driver is always liable.
You can only invoke no keeper liability if the drivers identity remains unknown to the PPC.
-
If you have already told Euro Car Parks that you were the driver when you originally appealed then PoFA and keeper liability are irrelevant.
Including it serves only to distract from your relevant points, in my view.
-
Okay, here it is. A link to my appeal. I apologise in advance to @b789 for choosing to keep in the 'no invitation to the keeper'. I just felt like if there was any chance something might get missed or the slightest chance POPLA still see it as noteworthy it would be worth keeping. Plus with the ambiguity of the address it helps to bolster this argument.
Note I have NOT sent this. I am still waiting to hear from the landowners in the hope I can have the charge removed.
POPLA APPEAL DRAFT (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pqub1yb25y2p12z0uixam/POPLA-APPEAL-2411454240-Edit.pdf?rlkey=4bg4dzuvbpnpgl4w480cu04xt&st=am6ccdsx&dl=0)
No such thing as bad criticism so don't be shy.
-
I wouldn't. Focus on hard evidence, rather than the unverifiable opinions of others.
-
Is it worth me adding the screenshots of similarly damning reviews of the car park that I sent previously or is this unnecessary? They are both taken from car parks operated by Euro Car Parks
See earlier post for images.
-
The address on the NtK is important because it must be accurate enough to identify the relevant land. Any ambiguity is an appeal point and also a defence point in that, an address that does not identify the relevant land, renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA and so there can be no keeper liability.
-
Is this important... looking at my PCN again the address on the back is DIFFERENT to the address on Google Maps. My PCN has the address as 60 Bishopsgate street, fiveways, Birmingham B15 1DB. Turns out they've used the address for the car park OPPOSITE the one I parked in. The address according to Google for the car park I used is Tennant St, Birmingham B15 1DA. Before you ask, yes I paid for parking in the correct car park. Both are operated by Euro Car Parks. Does this help my case?
Nevermind, I think that they both must operate under the same address as my receipt also has that address.
-
That being said, besides the operators failure to display the correct time upon do I actually have any other meritorious points? (In your opinion)
All the points mentioned so far are worth including. I'd say the machine not working is the strongest specific to the case, as it was entirely outside your control, and an error on their part, that you have evidence to support (include this in the appeal).
-
I absolutely see both of you points and I feel that it would be to leave less substantial points towards the end of my appeal. That being said, besides the operators failure to display the correct time upon do I actually have any other meritorious points? (In your opinion)
Honestly I am so annoyed I rushed into my initial appeal and identified the driver. Life lesson I guess.
-
We'll have to disagree on this.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing - I'd read your post as suggesting that you don't bother raising issues like landowner authority in detail at all, and instead replace them with the single sentence you were proposing. If you're saying that you should make all those points in detail, but preface them with that sentence, then that's fine.
I would however stand by my point that in this case, the OP should lead with the point around the machine being faulty.
(My use of the term 'kitchen sink' was deliberately flippant; I'm in favour of including any points that might win, but leading with the strongest/most meritorious, which in this case, is the dodgy machine)
-
We'll have to disagree on this.
It's not 'kitchen sink', IMO it's fundamental to a creditor's legal standing to bring a claim. It cannot be something which an assessor can overlook, not if they're doing their job correctly. Just as a traffic order, service of a PCN and NTO are essential conditions of a council's claim - before one considers what they contain and allege- so it should be, and I believe is, with IAS.
OP, you have different views: IMO, it's front and centre whereas others differ.
Make sure it's in somewhere.
-
I don't like this 'put to strict proof..' because IMO it's unnecessary, you do not need to raise matters upon which the assessor must be satisfied in this way BEFORE progressing to substantive matters as regards the creditor's claim. But it's a personal thing!
Except often, if you don't raise a matter explicitly, the assessor won't consider it (whether they should is another matter, but one that is rather immaterial if they don't). That said, any of these 'kitchen sink' type points should be made last, after any more substantive/meritorious matters specific to the case in question.
-
If you want to cover these points, then IMO consolidate them with a short intro sentence such as..
In addition to those matters upon which the assessor must satisfy themselves as regards the creditor's compliance with their ATA's Code of Practice e.g. landowner authority etc, before considering the substantive points of the creditor's claim, I am appealing on the following points...
I don't like this 'put to strict proof..' because IMO it's unnecessary, you do not need to raise matters upon which the assessor must be satisfied in this way BEFORE progressing to substantive matters as regards the creditor's claim. But it's a personal thing!
By putting this in you make it clear that you are entitled to examine the creditor's evidence in this regard(not that without it you wouldn't).
-
I want to thank everyone here for their selfless input into my appeal. My final idea is to include more on 'No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice'
This links to the fact that the number given by the operator was only an automated message with no option to speak to anyone for assistance and no other support was offered.
Could anyone please give guidance on how I may bolster this argument with a 'no nonsense' approach?
Thank you all once again
-
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I propose that this has been issued incorrectly and have evidence to prove this. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered. EURO CAR PARKS failed to display the correct time upon payment, within their NtK there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge, they have not provided evidence of landowner authority and the signage fails to meet the required British Parking Association standards.
2. There are also failures in their NtK that prevents them from transferring the liability from the driver to the the keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by the strict provisions of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). As that requirement is missing, the NtK is not fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA and they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
As already discussed, you said admitted to being the driver in your initial appeal. Therefore, there is no point in referencing PoFA or keeper liability. The driver is always liable and you have admitted to being the driver.
-
Wow. Thank you, reading this through I definitely prefer the no nonsense approach. Does this all serve as just for my main point? Would you recommend I still include my other arguments or would your suggestions suffice?
-
Try and simplify matters by focusing on the key matters and leaving out the nonsense about planning etc. Sorry, but it's a waste of time.
As can be seen from Exhibit 1, *** car park is a Pay on Exit car park which operates in the following manner:
Car enters car park and VRM and time of entry are recorded automatically.
On leaving, the driver is required to enter their VRM and the system then calculates and demands payment which is displayed on a screen;
On payment of the sum demanded the barriers rise and the vehicle may exit.
There is no input required from the driver other than to enter their VRM and no changes or variations to the sum demanded are possible even if the driver wanted to do so.
While a tariff board is displayed, this is for information only as regards the driver who is obliged to pay the sum calculated by the check-out system and is not free to calculate their own estimate of product of their parking period and the respective tariff.
The circumstances of this case are that on exit the driver entered their correct VRM(which is not disputed by the creditor) and paid the sum demanded by the creditor's system, and therefore the creditor(again, this point is not disputed by the creditor).
Subsequently, the keeper received a PCN which alleged that the driver did not pay the correct tariff for their period on site because their system wrongly calculated what was due. The specific times and tariffs are contained in the creditor's evidence, but the issue is not one of details but of principle and accountability.
In a nutshell, the creditor is trying to seek payment of a parking charge in respect of their(their system's) failure. I submit that as a matter of law, common-sense and fairness this claim must be rejected.
Or something similar.
-
How is this for a revision of point 1?
"1. On the date in question, when the driver used the payment system provided, Euro Car Parks system failed to display the correct time. As stated in EURO CAR PARKS NtK and SIGNAGE EVIDENCE, payment (stated as 'pay on foot') only needs to be made BEFORE leaving the car park (rather than a car park which requires payment in advance). The operators car park is supposed to calculate the vehicles's total stay automatically. As you can clearly see from *evidence of reciept* the *START TIME OF PARKING SESSION* is time stamped at 10:38pm which is a direct contradiction of the vehicle time arrival of 17:55:41 Euro Car Parks have provided through ANPR *add evidence here*. After being presented a time of 10:38pm via the operators payment machine, the driver was not presented with any option to amend the tariff being demanded in order to pay the 'correct' amount. The number provided by EURO CAR PARKS 'for any enquiry' as quotes from the payment receipt and signage played an automated message which at the time of writing this still offers no way to speak to any employee nor file a concern.
Furthermore, upon further investigation it appears that both the car park used by the driver 'Five Ways Car Park - Tennant Street' and the adjacent car park also operated by EURO CAR PARK, the suspiciously similar named '5 Ways Car Park' have been subject to suspicious malfunctions in their operating system. Several users have reported ticket machines displaying false times for drivers upon attempting to pay with no option of being able to amend this payment. There is a clear breach of interest a negligence shown from this operator which I believe should absolve the driver of all liability. Please refer to the evidence provided below. Variously the PPC is in breach of an implied term of the contract (that the machine will accept the required payment) and trying to hold the driver liable for their failure and/or that the contract was frustrated by the failure of their machine."
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Point #1 is your strongest, and yet is only very briefly outlined. I think you need to make this point much clearer. It's not clear from reading that draft, for example, that payment only needs to be made before leaving (rather than a car park that requires payment in advance), or that the machine is supposed to calculate the vehicle's stay automatically, with the driver not being presented with any option to amend the tariff being demanded in order to pay the 'correct' amount.
-
Hi there everyone. Please find below an initial draft of my appeal. Points addressed as ?? are additional purposed points and therefore have no been developed. If you believe any of these have the potential to be useful please let me know and I will develop them. Thank you all for what you have already offered, I am beyond grateful.
"APPEAL: POPLA REFERENCE: 2411454240
Euro Car Parks NtK
Date of issue: 22/04/2024
VEHICLE REG: VU71FYJ
Accused Breach of Terms and Conditions: Your payment or validation did not cover the duration of stay
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I propose that this has been issued incorrectly and have evidence to prove this. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered. EURO CAR PARKS failed to display the correct time upon payment, within their NtK there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge, they have not provided evidence of landowner authority and the signage fails to meet the required British Parking Association standards.
1. On the date in question, when the driver used the payment system provided, Euro Car Parks system failed to display the correct time. As you can clearly see from *evidence of reciept* the *START TIME OF PARKING SESSION* is time stamped at 10:38pm which is a direct contradiction of the vehicle time arrival Euro Car Parks have claimed in their initial response to my appeal. Variously the PPC is in breach of an implied term of the contract (that the machine will accept the required payment) and trying to hold the driver liable for their failure and/or that the contract was frustrated by the failure of their machine.
2. There are also failures in their NtK that prevents them from transferring the liability from the driver to the the keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by the strict provisions of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). As that requirement is missing, the NtK is not fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA and they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
3. The operator in question has not provided evidence of landowner authority. *WHAT EVIDENCE DO I NEED TO REFERENCE HERE?* Therefore the burden of proof lies on the operator EURO CAR PARKS to prove that they do have that authority.
4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon do not offer sufficient customer support. The Operator needs to show evidence of support in the event of system errors - specifically providing a contact support that could adepately address and error such as system errors. Please refer to *EVIDENCE OF SIGNAGE FOR PARKING TERMS AND CONDITIONS* to see that no offer or support or contact is provided if any errors or failures in their systems occur. The number provided on their PAYMENT RECEIPT *cite evidence of reciept* and on their signage does not provide an option to speak to an operator or even leave a message so EURO CAR PARKS have failed to provide adequate support for customers. Their signage also states 'PLEASE VSIIT THE PAY STATION TO PAY FOR PARKING BEFORE RETURNING TO YOUR VEHICLE'. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. The driver followed these instructions and therefor forfilled the terms and conditions set out thus invalidating the NtK in question. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.
??. Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park. In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.
??. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.
??. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.
This concludes my appeal.
Thank you for your consideration."
Any and all critique massively appreciated
-
An NtK is the 'Notice to Keeper' that was sent to you as the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
-
"Making an onerous term prominent as a requirement of the common law for enforcing such terms as well as being a requirement of a CoP"
Is any of this worth adding in my appeal and if so how does it apply to my case?
Also sorry to ask, but what does NtK stand for?
-
An invitation for the keeper to pay the charge (which would seem to be somewhat implicit on an NtK asking the keeper to pay the charge) is part of the requirement under PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper vicariously liable when they do not know the identity of the driver. If they know the identity of the driver, PoFA 2012 is irrelevant as far as any legal claim against the driver is concerned.
Whether POPLA would uphold an appeal on such a ground might be a different matter though.
Making an onerous term prominent as a requirement of the common law for enforcing such terms as well as being a requirement of a CoP. This has nothing to do with whether or not you have blabbed about who was driving - this goes to the enforceablility of the term at law.
-
Okay will do! One last thing, can I still use the argument that An invitation for the keeper to pay the charge was not given? Also is this the same as lack of prominence of the charge for breaching the terms?
-
Yes post a draft here for comment. I wouldn't offer to pay the amount it should have been. Your appeal will be making the point that the driver already intended and attempted to pay the correct tariff on the day but was prevented from doing so due to the failure of the operator's machine.
-
Thank you both so much. Would you be happy for me to post a draft of what I am planning to put into my appeal for you to critique? Would it be better for me to DM you? Should I offer to pay the correct amount in my appeal (should have been £6.50 for the time parked) or is this unnecessary?
-
Thanks Andy, should I lead with this in my appeal?
I would - it's the main meritoious point you have raised, so I'd lead with it, then follow up with the others that b789 has suggested.
-
You address a POPLA appeal to the POLA assessor. You are the appellant and the parking company is the operator.
You are not providing evidence of "landowner authority". You are telling the POPLA assessor that the operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority. Therefore the burden of proof lies on the operator to prove that they do have that authority.
If you are arguing inadequate signage, then you are pointing out deficiencies and breaches of the BPA CoP and the operator has to rebut those arguments.
Of course you lead with your main argument about their system failure. You show the evidence of that failure and it is up to the operator to rebut that evidence.
Include the argument pointed out by @andy_foster about the breach of an implied term in the contract.
Have read of the BPA CoP (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf) and the CRA 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents) for other things and how you may want to word them in your appeal.
-
I would include that variously the PPC is in breach of an implied term of the contract (that the machine will accept the required payment) and trying to hold you liable for their failure and/or that the contract was frustrated by the failure of their machine.
Thanks Andy, should I lead with this in my appeal? Is my evidence attached in the original post enough to back up this argument?
-
I plan to quote section 15.7 in some way referencing that the driver has paid fully for the parking (of which the ticket machine charged), complied with all other conditions of parking as stated in their signage and received a parking charge due to a reasonable genuine error. Is there anything else I should make clear?
What is "section 15.7"?
I had seen this quoted in another forum but now I'm beginning to think I may be mistaken.
How should I word these appeals? I am happy to give as many arguments as possible. Do I need photographic evidence of 'no evidence of landowner authority'? Is my evidence already posted suitable evidence for 'inadequate/poor signage'. Is it worth noting that Google reviews have also cited a similar issue with parking? Would print screenshots of these reviews be useful as evidence?
As my main argument is that their system failed, should I lead with this argument? Do I address it as though it is to a single person or a company?
Thanks
-
I would include that variously the PPC is in breach of an implied term of the contract (that the machine will accept the required payment) and trying to hold you liable for their failure and/or that the contract was frustrated by the failure of their machine.
-
I plan to quote section 15.7 in some way referencing that the driver has paid fully for the parking (of which the ticket machine charged), complied with all other conditions of parking as stated in their signage and received a parking charge due to a reasonable genuine error. Is there anything else I should make clear?
What is "section 15.7"?
POPLA will only consider breaches of the BPA CoP or errors in law by the operator. Mitigation does not enter into it. You must lead the assessor by the nose to anything that you intend to rely on as part of your appeal. You also must include as many arguments as possible in a POPLA appeal. The operator has to rebut all your arguments. You only need to win on a single point. So, the kitchen sink is thrown in at a POPLA Appel.
Besides the fact that their system failed and they have issued the PCN incorrectly, you will also need to include things inadequate/poor signage (always a valid POPLA point regarding ECP), no evidence of landowner authority and so on. Before you send anything, show us here and we'll critique it for you.
-
Thank you for at least trying with an option before going to POPLA. I have been given a POPLa code from rejected appeal. I plan to state in my appeal that I tried to pay the correct amount but was unable to do so due to an error on their ticketing machine. There was also no way to contact anyone at the time this happened as their number only allows an option to pay a parking fine, not to actually discuss any errors or concerns. I plan to quote section 15.7 in some way referencing that the driver has paid fully for the parking (of which the ticket machine charged), complied with all other conditions of parking as stated in their signage and received a parking charge due to a reasonable genuine error. Is there anything else I should make clear?
-
Could you please explain more what is meant by the below statement in your message:
"There are also failures in their NtK that should prevent them from transferring the liability from the (hopefully) unknown driver to the the keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge"
Unfortunately, if you admitted to being the driver, you have blown that appeal/defence point out of the water.
The driver is always liable for any charge. EPC have no idea who the driver is. If they want to be able to transfer that liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper, they have to use wording as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They have not included an invitation for the keeper to pay the charge. This is specifically required as per PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). As that requirement is missing, the NtK is not fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA and they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. However, as you have identified yourself as the driver, even though there is no legal obligation to do so, you are therefore liable.
Did you receive a POPLA code in your appeal rejection letter? The is your next step. Whilst it says the POPLA code is only valid for 28 days, it is actually valid for 32 days. Show us what you plan to put in your POPLA appeal and we'll go from there.
-
What exactly did you put in your original appeal? Did you reveal the keeper to also be the driver? Have you complained about this charge to the business you were visiting or patronising at the time? If it is a retail park, have you tried to find out who the managing agent or landowner is and ask them to get this speculative invoice for £100, issued in error and unfairly by their agent, cancelled?
Your Plan C will be an appeal to POPLA where, hopefully, this will get cancelled as it appears to have been issued incorrectly and you have evidence to show that. There are also failures in their NtK that should prevent them from transferring the liability from the (hopefully) unknown driver to the the keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by the strict provisions of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted).
There are other BPA CoP breaches that can be included in your POPLA appeal such as poor signage and lack of prominence of the charge for breaching the terms.
I do not have a copy as it was sent via Euro Car Parks website, I made this appeal the same day I received the letter. In this appeal, I did identify myself as the driver. I originally only sent this appeal with a bank statement and later realised I had an invoice for the receipt of the transaction afterwards and sent this is a follow-up email with the below statement:
As stated in my first correspondence, I stated that your facility incorrectly recorded my entry as the time I entered my registration forcing me to have to pay the minimum fee. I have attached payment receipt as proof of this. Please note the time your system claims that I arrived which is contradictory to the alleged time in your letter. I have also attached an image of the terms and conditions of your carpark taken on the evening of the alleged incident. As you can clearly see it states that for customers to 'pay for your parking at the end of your stay before leaving the car park'. I followed these terms as stated so the fault is down to a fault in your system.
There was no confirmation from Euro Car Parks that they received this information or the evidence attached.
This was Five Ways Birmingham car park which is not park of a retail park as far as I am aware. There is a casino that can be entered via the car park but I cannot confirm the two are affiliated. I used this car park for a business (Symphony Hall) not affiliated with the car park.
Could you please explain more what is meant by the below statement in your message:
"There are also failures in their NtK that should prevent them from transferring the liability from the (hopefully) unknown driver to the the keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge"
Thanks
-
What exactly did you put in your original appeal? Did you reveal the keeper to also be the driver? Have you complained about this charge to the business you were visiting or patronising at the time? If it is a retail park, have you tried to find out who the managing agent or landowner is and ask them to get this speculative invoice for £100, issued in error and unfairly by their agent, cancelled?
Your Plan C will be an appeal to POPLA where, hopefully, this will get cancelled as it appears to have been issued incorrectly and you have evidence to show that. There are also failures in their NtK that should prevent them from transferring the liability from the (hopefully) unknown driver to the the keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by the strict provisions of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted).
There are other BPA CoP breaches that can be included in your POPLA appeal such as poor signage and lack of prominence of the charge for breaching the terms.
-
Can we see the back of the PPN?
Not sure if this what you meant but here's the back of the Parking Charge Notice
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can we see the back of the PPN?
-
Hi there,
The driver of this car attempted to pay after staying in a Euro car park but when they inputted the registration it said they had only just arrived. There was no way of speaking to anyone or calling anyone to address this so they paid the amount requested. A photo of the car parks terms and conditions was also taken to make it clear that payment was to be made upon exiting the car park. They also kept a pdf receipt of this payment as they wanted to make sure there was proof that an attempt to pay for the parking was made. 2 weeks later they received a letter to say their payment did not cover the duration. As the owner of the car, I made an appeal to Euro Car Parks stating all of this but it was rejected, even though their correspondents ignored the fact that their machines incorrectly read the time of the vehicle when parking payment was made. I would massively appreciate it if someone could take a look through the evidence I have provided and let me know if it's worth my time to go through POPLA to make a formal appeal.
A huge thank you in advance to anyone who has taken the time to read through this.
Harmony guru
[attachment deleted by admin]