Show Posts - amis66

This is my first draft of the appeal, any suggestions?Dear POPLA Adjudicator,I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by Euro Car Parks for the alleged parking contravention on 30/01/2025 at Sainsbury’s, Newton Abbot. My appeal is based on multiple grounds, including the operator's failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and other procedural and evidential shortcomings.1. Failure to Comply with POFA Schedule 4a. Non-Compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i): Required InvitationUnder POFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), the Notice to Keeper (NTK) must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the parking charge or provide the driver’s details. However, the wording on the back of the NTK does not fulfil this requirement. Instead of a clear invitation, the NTK states:"You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days… 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…”This language is unclear and fails to meet the strict legal standard. The NTK does not properly invite the keeper to take the specified actions but instead shifts the burden onto them with vague and non-compliant wording.b. Non-Compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(f): Keeper Liability TimeframePOFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that the parking charge becomes payable by the keeper only if it remains unpaid for 28 days after the NTK is deemed delivered. The NTK incorrectly states that payment is required “28 days from the issue date.” This misrepresentation creates a procedural defect and misleads the keeper about their liability.2. Breach of BPA Code of Practicea. Early Debt Recovery ThreatsThe NTK threatens debt recovery action before the full appeal period has expired, contrary to Section 8.1.2(e) of the BPA Code of Practice. This unfair practice disregards the required timelines and further undermines the validity of the Parking Charge Notice.b. Signage: Inadequate and UnclearThe signage at the site fails to meet the standards set out in BPA Code of Practice Section 19. Specifically:Poor Night-Time Visibility: The signs are not illuminated or reflective, making them impossible to read after dark. Drivers cannot reasonably be expected to comply with terms they cannot see.Ambiguity Regarding “Store Opening Hours”: The phrase “during store opening hours” is not defined. With both a Sainsbury’s and McDonald’s on-site, which have differing hours, it is unclear which store the signage refers to.Failure to Display Key Terms Clearly: The terms and conditions outlined on the signage are not legible from a driver's position in the car. The font size is too small, and important information, such as restrictions or conditions of parking, is not prominently displayed. This makes it difficult for drivers to understand or comply with the stated terms, especially when attempting to read the signage while entering or parking their vehicle.c. Signage: Poor Placement and Lack of Visibility from All DirectionsThe signage at the entrance to the car park is not visible to drivers approaching from all directions. Specifically:Inadequate Positioning: When entering the car park from Torquay Road, into Keyberry Road and then into the car park, the sign is positioned behind the driver’s left shoulder, making it impossible for the driver to view it clearly without stopping and turning their head significantly. This means the signage cannot be reasonably seen through the front windscreen of a vehicle upon entry.Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice: Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice mandates that signage must be placed so that it is clearly visible to drivers when entering the site. The current placement of the sign fails to meet this standard, as it does not ensure clear and unambiguous communication to all motorists.Due to this placement issue, drivers entering the car park cannot be expected to see, read, or agree to the terms of parking. This lack of visibility undermines the formation of a valid contract between the driver and the operator.3. Lack of Landowner AuthorityIn accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, Euro Car Parks is required to have written authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue enforcement. I request that POPLA demand the operator provide:A full, unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner.Proof that the contract was valid on the date of the alleged contravention.If this evidence is not supplied, it must be concluded that Euro Car Parks does not have the authority to issue or enforce this Parking Charge Notice.Summary of FailuresNon-compliance with POFA Paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f).Threatening early debt recovery in breach of BPA Code of Practice.Inadequate and ambiguous signage, failing to form a valid contract.Failure to provide proof of landowner authority.Given these significant issues, the Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable, and I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge in full.This appeal is submitted with reference to the applicable legal and procedural requirements, and I trust POPLA will give due regard to these points.Yours faithfully,  

As expected the appeal has been rejected.On to POPLA appeal.

Quote from: b789 on 22 Feb, 2025 04:14You can upload your appeal as a pdf here:https://www.eurocarparks.com/enquiryThanks, I looked at that page and it clearly states that they do not accept appeals via that web form.Quote from: DWMB2 on 22 Feb, 2025 08:23Quote The lack of lighting in the carpark won't be a defence, your car does have two extremely bright lights on it. It might be if, combined with the placement of the signage, it rendered the signage difficult to spot and/or properly read.Unless the signage was unusual low down, or the driver was driving about with his full beams on, his Car headlights are unlikely to have illuminated the terms and conditions signage. Yes the headlights might have illuminated the signs had there been any, if you look at the photo's I posted there isn't any signs high , low or otherwise!As for talk of courts we are well away from that point! I simply want to appeal to ECP and then move on the POPLA.

Thanks for taking the time for explaining.ECP only allow appeals via post or via their website where the online form doesn't give enough characters to post the response provided in full!The full response is 892 character but the online form is only allowing 800 characters.  So stupid question time    should I appeal via post and hope Royal Mail manage to deliver by the deadline or reduce the response by 92 characters and appeal online?

b789 thank you so much for your reply.  My expectation was that no matter what I stated ECP would refuse the appeal.I notice that page two of the NTK didn't appear in my original post so I've posted it here, does that make any difference to it being POFA compliant?Just so I can understand would you mind explaining what makes it non compliant?  I will so follow your advice, I went through this process nearly ten years ago for another PCN at Asda in Newquay it took 18 months but with the advice of a forum like this we won a POPLA appeal 

We have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks following a visit to McDonalds drive through next to the Sainsburys cars park.  After collecting the order the car exited the McDonalds area and moved into the Sainsburys area to take a phone call.We've visited McDonalds and Sainsburys many times and wasn't aware of any parking restrictions.  On the day of the contravention it was late at night and dark.  We visited after receiving the letter at a similar time and saved the dashcam footage to show that the car park is dark and there is no lit signage.The images in the letter are very dark and I haven't redacted the entry image that is what it looks like!We don't believe that the signage is sufficient to comply with the BPA code of conduct but would like some guidance about appeal to Euro Car Parks in the first instance, how much do we say?