Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: NBSCMN on July 27, 2024, 01:22:58 pm

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: Maz on December 07, 2024, 04:25:53 pm

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but the information is really helpful here. I've just posted but the overstay was a shorter period

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: b789 on August 13, 2024, 12:51:46 am

Well, you’ve copied and pasted most of that from somewhere. No idea why you’re leading on landowner authority. That should probably be your last point.

Signage is probably best for first point followed by PoFA failure to hold keeper liable and then no evidence to show the person they are pursuing is the driver and so on.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on August 12, 2024, 10:16:15 pm

Thank you.

How does this sound


----------

1. No evidence of Landowner Authority


As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 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

2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, 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''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £85, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Please see the parking sign notice for Sainsbury’s Pimlico below.



---------------

2. The NtK is not strictly PoFA compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge.

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.

The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. I, as the keeper, have no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

Euro Car Parks’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at [enter location].”

The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered Sainsbury’s Pimlico at [xxxxx and departed at [xxxxxxx]”. At no stage do Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

Euro Car Parks NtK states “we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

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.

I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.



----------------------


3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate


The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two
images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question.
There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:

“On 28/5/24 the vehicle: xxxxxxx entered Sainsbury’s Pimlico, at
xxxxxx and departed at xxxxx on xxxxxxx.”

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Euro
Car Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry
and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking
and this cannot reasonably be assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements
of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the
period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that 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 with 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.


----------------------------------


4. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be
used for.


The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used
for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the
'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use
ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car
parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that
the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by
ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these car
park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for,
which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and
Consumer law.

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign in the Sainsbury’s Pimlico car park (see Figure 1)
states:

“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and
calculate the length of stay”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera
images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is
absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way
related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge
Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices
being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead
merely states (see Figure 1):

“This car park is patrolled. Please observe the following conditions to avoid a parking charge notice of £85”

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case
with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there
is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem
shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68:
Requirement for Transparency:

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a
consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is
expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

and Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different
meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not
security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the
operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent’:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading
omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph
(2) -

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,

(b) the commercial practice hides material information,

(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner
which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless
this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is
likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he
would not have taken otherwise.''



Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: b789 on August 12, 2024, 05:57:32 pm

I've already stated, it is paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted);

Quote

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

(2)The notice must—

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

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;

Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012

This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the notice to the keeper must include:

An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The Act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice non-compliant.

Non-Compliance Issue

If the parking charge notice fails to include a clear "invitation to pay" or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.

Significance of Full Compliance

Strict Liability: The law mandates full compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.

Partial or Even Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or substantial compliance - every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.

Consequences for the Operator

Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.

Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weakens their case if the NtK or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.

Conclusion

In summary, an NtK that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on August 12, 2024, 05:37:25 pm

thank you very helpful!!!




with there not being an invitation for the keeper to pay. So this doesnt count as an invitiation for the keeper to pay? Or are you saying that it needs to be much more specific. As in - EPC invites you, the keeper, to pay this fine if the driver is not identified?

Would this be section (9)(2)(b) of POFA?


' If after 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given, the Parking Charge Notice has not been paid in full,
we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid '



'You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is presumed

to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the

name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you'.

Quote from: b789 on August 12, 2024, 04:31:28 pm

You need to get a move on. The NtK is not strictly PoFA compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge.

The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.

The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. Only the driver and, as the keeper, you under no legal obligation whatsoever, to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. Therefore the operator should take the matter up with the driver.

Also, ECP signs are notorious for their failure to comply with the BPA Code of Practice as they fail to adequately alert the driver to the charge for breaching the terms.

Here is the successful outcome of a recent POPLA appeal for exactly the same reasons as yours with ECP. Read it and take note of the points appealed on and the assessors reasons for upholding the appeal. Whilst this was for a Hired vehicle and they failed to fully comply wi the requirements of PoFA, you have the reasoning for their failure to comply with PoFA for your appeal. You also throw in all the other points too, especially about the signage:

Quote

Operator: Euro Car Parks

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being parked for longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

• They were the hirer of the vehicle.
• The parking operator has failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that is fully compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They refer to paragraphs 13 and 14 of PoFA in this regard and note that the PCN must be delivered within a relevant period and the parking operator must be provided with a copy of documents mentioned here.
• The parking operator has not shown that they are pursuing the driver for the PCN. As they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the hirer liable, they must hold the driver liable. They also do not have to name the driver and there is no presumption that the hirer or keeper was the driver at the time.
• There is no evidence of landowner authority and the operator has been put to strict proof regarding this and it cannot be assumed that because they have some signs, they can issue PCNs on this land. They refer to section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
• There is insufficient and unclear signage. They refer to the ParkingEye v Beavis case and how the PCN amount was the largest part of the sign.
• They state the PCN does not show where the vehicle was parked. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to:
• The parking operator did not provide them with the hire documents included within the case file.
• There is no evidence that the landowner contract was renewed.
• The font on the signage is so small that is cannot be read from even a close distance. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: ooooooo which was issued to PCN number ooooooo.

Within their appeal to both POPLA and the parking operator, the driver’s details have not been provided. PoFA is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. PoFA lets parking operators transfer liability for a parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle if certain rules are followed.

The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but there is no evidence that the required documents were sent to the appellant. I acknowledge the parking operator has referred to the Memorandum of Understanding however, as it is a requirement of PoFA that the documents be sent to the appellant, this is not sufficient to show they have complied with PoFA.

The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: b789 on August 12, 2024, 04:31:28 pm

You need to get a move on. The NtK is not strictly PoFA compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge.

The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.

The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. Only the driver and, as the keeper, you under no legal obligation whatsoever, to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. Therefore the operator should take the matter up with the driver.

Also, ECP signs are notorious for their failure to comply with the BPA Code of Practice as they fail to adequately alert the driver to the charge for breaching the terms.

Here is the successful outcome of a recent POPLA appeal for exactly the same reasons as yours with ECP. Read it and take note of the points appealed on and the assessors reasons for upholding the appeal. Whilst this was for a Hired vehicle and they failed to fully comply wi the requirements of PoFA, you have the reasoning for their failure to comply with PoFA for your appeal. You also throw in all the other points too, especially about the signage:

Quote

Operator: Euro Car Parks

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being parked for longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

• They were the hirer of the vehicle.
• The parking operator has failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that is fully compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They refer to paragraphs 13 and 14 of PoFA in this regard and note that the PCN must be delivered within a relevant period and the parking operator must be provided with a copy of documents mentioned here.
• The parking operator has not shown that they are pursuing the driver for the PCN. As they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the hirer liable, they must hold the driver liable. They also do not have to name the driver and there is no presumption that the hirer or keeper was the driver at the time.
• There is no evidence of landowner authority and the operator has been put to strict proof regarding this and it cannot be assumed that because they have some signs, they can issue PCNs on this land. They refer to section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
• There is insufficient and unclear signage. They refer to the ParkingEye v Beavis case and how the PCN amount was the largest part of the sign.
• They state the PCN does not show where the vehicle was parked. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to:
• The parking operator did not provide them with the hire documents included within the case file.
• There is no evidence that the landowner contract was renewed.
• The font on the signage is so small that is cannot be read from even a close distance. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: ooooooo which was issued to PCN number ooooooo.

Within their appeal to both POPLA and the parking operator, the driver’s details have not been provided. PoFA is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. PoFA lets parking operators transfer liability for a parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle if certain rules are followed.

The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but there is no evidence that the required documents were sent to the appellant. I acknowledge the parking operator has referred to the Memorandum of Understanding however, as it is a requirement of PoFA that the documents be sent to the appellant, this is not sufficient to show they have complied with PoFA.

The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on August 12, 2024, 03:59:48 pm

Ok I see.

Can you point me in the right direction for this appeal? It looks complaint with POFA so I can't use that. What else would I be able to say

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: b789 on August 12, 2024, 03:42:18 pm

The 28/33 days is nothing to do with "argument". It is simply a fact that you actually have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. No one actually told you to wait until the last minute to actually appeal.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on August 12, 2024, 03:06:13 pm

ok will do. In the mean time, the 33 days finishes this Wednesday so would it be best to send the POPLA appeal? And would I use the 28 not 33 as the main argument point here? Not sure what to do.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: b789 on August 12, 2024, 02:59:07 pm

Quote from: NBSCMN on August 12, 2024, 02:53:26 pm

I cant see where it says it has 33 days instead of 28 days to appeal.

It doesn't say it but it is a fact.

Have you tried emailing the CEO of Sainsbury's and letting them pass it on to someone far enough up the management food chain to action it?

simon.roberts@sainsburys.co.uk

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on August 12, 2024, 02:53:26 pm

I've put a complaint in writing to customer services last week but no reply. the manager of sainsburys didnt want anything to do with it and would not give out their email for me to send formal request for cancellation. I'm not sure what to do now. What do i say for this appeal?

I cant see where it says it has 33 days instead of 28 days to appeal.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on August 02, 2024, 09:42:27 am

the driver did buy at sainsburys and ended up having a family emergency and they forgot about the car. they spoke to management and were told because they didnt mention it before they had left the store, they couldnt cancel the pcn. Not in writing

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: b789 on July 28, 2024, 11:45:54 pm

Was the driver a Sainsbury’s customer? Is the car park shared with other retailers? Who at Sainsbury’s did they complain to? Did they to. How high up the management food chain did this complaint go? It in writing?

Either Sainsbury’s contracted the PPC or Sainsbury’s landlord did. Who is the monkey and who is the organ grinder in the relationship with the PPC?

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on July 28, 2024, 08:24:31 pm

yeah asked sainsburys and they referred back to ecp.

and no i didnt complain, I just copied the one size fits all template from the mse forum.

so the 33 days for POPLA appeal instead of 28 would be enough to get this appealed?

Not sure what the next steps would be

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: The Rookie on July 28, 2024, 10:11:47 am

So did you complain as per your first paragraph? What was the result?

You seem to imply they haven’t complied so as to have keeper liability, so what parts of PoFA did they not comply with?

Don’t demand things you have no right to, it makes you look an amateur (as does making threats you don’t carry out), parking companies love those who out themselves as amateurs.

Title: Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: b789 on July 27, 2024, 10:34:32 pm

The keeper appeals to POPLA. POPLA will only consider points of law or breaches of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). Mitigation does not come into it.

You actually have 33 days from the issue of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal, not the 28 it mentions. What points do you think you can appeal on?

Was the driver a customer of Sainsbury’s? Have you tried asking Sainsbury’s if they will get it cancelled?

Title: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
Post by: NBSCMN on July 27, 2024, 01:22:58 pm

Hi

Hopefully someone can help. Driver overstayed at sainsburys and completely forgot about the car etc..

I applied using this initially .

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.


It's been rejected and referred to POPLA. What would be the next steps for me? Comparing it to other POFA compliant notices, it looks like its compliant.

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/Ro3HASm