Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear FTLA,

Please note first appeal has been sent by an over zealous family member as they thought common sense would prevail but this has subsequently been rejected.

Quick Backstory - Driver has parked vehicle in an ECP ANPR car park and then paid via the ticket machines which are not adjustable i.e you enter the reg and then pay whats on the screen.

Driver has received a ticket "Breach of Terms and Conditions:
the payment-permit purchased did not cover the
date and time of parking"

Please see below rejection letter from ECP - I also attach a PDF

I am now looking to appeal to POPLA and could really do with some assistance.

Please also look at time of issue of PCN and the "period Start - Period End" as there looks to be a technical issue with cameras etc.


Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for
the following reasons:

• The car park operation is Pay on Foot – therefore each time you leave the car park you are
required to pay.

• The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject
to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. This signage quite clearly
states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a
Parking Charge Notice will be issued.

• On entry to private land, it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure
that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage
will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

• A ticket matching your registration was purchased for £2.00 this would have entitled your
vehicle to park for up to 1 Hour according to the clearly displayed tariff.

• Your vehicle entered at 11:13 and exited at 12:36, a total stay of 1 hour and 23 minutes.

• The P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking and therefore the
notice has been issued correctly and will remain payable.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi,

Its a pay upon exit so when walking back to the car at 12:33 it was paid which should have charged from entry at 11:13 until exit at 12:33 so we should have been charged for 2 hrs @£3.50 but the automated screen only calculated it as £2 so that's what was paid - there is no option to increase or decrease the charge it is literally what is show.

Are you sure it is a pay on exit car park? Can you get a photo of any of the signage that states this?

The appeal rejection that the OP has uploaded includes a photo of the sign.

It'd possibly be useful to get some photos of the payment machines, ideally showing that tariff calculation is automatic/not changeable.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for all the comments

this is our local shopping centre and I can confirm that its pay on exit.

I will be taking a video of the entire process to prove how payment is requested on the machine and that its not amendable tomorrow so that I have clear and obvious evidence showing its a technical fault.

I am more after help in drafting the appeal as I understand that popla require it be a very formal appeal with loads of legal speak to even remotely stand a chance of appeal.

I will upload the video tomorrow so everyone can see.

also please see images showing a sign clearly stating pay on exit and a picture of the payment terminal

[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi Guys,

Been back to the car park to get a video - clearly shows it was some sort of technical glitch - have also attached the NtK as requested.

If someone could please assist in drafting the popla appeal or pointing me in the right direction of where to get the information from it will be very much appreciated

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Whilst not applicable in this case, it is interesting that under their Parking Charge Notice Information, they correctly inform a hire company should transfer liability: “If you are a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle was hired out at the time the parking took place, please let us know and provide us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.”

However, under their Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph, they state: “Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains outstanding.”. They are absolutely not allowed to do this as the only person who knows who was driving is the driver themselves. A hire company cannot know who was driving and once liability is transferred to the hirer, the only recourse open to the operator is to pursue the keeper if all the requirements of PoFA have been met or pursue the driver if they know who that is.

So, a hire company that transfers liability to a hirer is unable to comply with that wording as they can only identify a hirer. Bastardising the wording in the NtK whilst purporting to be relying on it as an NtK that complies with the strict requirements of PoFA is a PoFA fail in and of itself.

So you now have the full suite of evidence and it's all theirs and proves your case.

From their evidence:

A photo of your car entering at 11.13;
A photo of your car leaving at 12.33;
Their response to your appeal which states:

A ticket matching your registration was purchased for £2.00 this would have entitled your vehicle to park for up to 1 Hour according to the clearly displayed tariff.

supplemented by an extract from the creditor's records stating:
Transaction .....  amount paid £2.00    period start 12.33  period end 13.33


The Notice to Keeper alleges the following breach:
'the payment did not cover the period of parking'


Sir,
I would refer the assessor to the creditor's letter dated *** which states that at 12.33 the following payment was made in respect of VRM ***:

Transaction .....  amount paid £2.00    period start 12.33  period end 13.33


I also refer to the PCN which shows a time of exit of 12.36.

It is impossible to reconcile this evidence which implies that the driver paid for an hour but left 3 minutes later. In any event this evidence does not support a claim for a breach which alleges that payment was not made for the period of parking. Instead it shows that the driver grossly overpaid.

However, the assessor will also notice that the PCN gives a time of entry of 11.16 and again it is impossible to reconcile this with the creditor's written evidence that the period of parking started at 12.33.

The creditor's evidence does not support a claim for a breach but instead shows that their records are contradictory and therefore unreliable as evidence. One would have thought that on receipt of my representations the creditor would have seen that their systems were awry and, instead of rejecting these, examined their own shortcomings. But they did not.


As the assessor will know, British Summer Time began on *** and whether this had any bearing on their ANPR and other records, I do not know. However, if their baseless claim against me is merely representative of perhaps a wider problem where potentially hundreds of other false demands for payment of parking charges might have been made, then I would welcome a comment from the assessor in the strongest possible terms which I could then use as the basis for a referral to the BPA for them to take further action.