Author Topic: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost  (Read 2171 times)

0 Members and 48 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #15 on: »
Here's the PCN notice. Sorry about the delay, I didn't get back home until late last night



And this is what I put in the appeal

I am writing to formally challenge the parking fine issued on 17/09/2024 at Birkenhead Hamilton Square. I believe this penalty is unjustified due to the following reasons, and I kindly request that you cancel this fine.

The driver has been a regular user of your car park for over a year. They follows the same routine each time, parking the car, entering the registration number, and paying for the ticket via their card. For the past year, the standard charge for 24 hours has been £2.60, and this is the amount they paid on the day in question, assuming the same tariff applied.

However, I have since learned that a new tariff structure has been introduced, with the minimum payment of £2.00 covering only 4 hours, and the cost for 24 hours now being £2.80. While the signs may have changed to reflect this, I believe it was not made sufficiently clear to regular users, like my wife, that these changes had taken effect.

As a frequent user of the car park, the driver had no reason to check the signage daily, since they believed they were familiar with the parking fees. The new structure, particularly the introduction of a 4-hour minimum, represents a significant change that was not adequately communicated to loyal customers. This lack of clarity led to an honest mistake on their part.

I have attached two photos that show both the old tariff and the new one. The differences are subtle but important, and I believe that more proactive efforts should have been made to alert regular users of the change—either through clearer signage, or an additional notice.

Given the circumstances, I kindly request that this fine be reconsidered and canceled, as it seems unreasonable to penalise a customer for an unintentional oversight caused by an insufficiently communicated change in pricing.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2024, 02:14:55 pm by theboytaff »

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #16 on: »
When you appealed, did you select anything that would admit to the Hirer being the driver?

However, given that the appeal was from the Hirer, it does not identify the hirer as the driver. That appeal maintains a clear distinction between the hirer and the driver by consistently referring to "the driver" in the third person and even specifying that "my wife" was the driver. This maintains the hirer's position as separate from the driver and does not suggest that the hirer was the one driving the vehicle at the time of the parking incident.

When the Notice to Hirer was received, did it also contain copies of these documents:

• a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

• a copy of the hire agreement; and

• a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

If it didn't (and I've yet to see an NtH that does) and as long as the Hirer has not identified as the driver, the Hirer cannot be liable for the charge as by failing to include copies of those documents, the NtH is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA.

So, has the Hirer been identified as the driver when submitting the appeal and did the NtH include the copies of the required documents?
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #17 on: »
I subbed 'the driver' for what I actually put which was my relation to the driver. I'm the hirer, but I didn't think I could put that relation here so subbed it. But for everywhere you see the driver, it would have said my 'relation'. Sadly I sent the challenge before I even discovered this forum :-(

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #18 on: »
I don't understand what you mean by "subbed" for the driver. It does not matter if you said your wife was driving. The NtH is addressed to you, the Hirer (I presume). The content of your appeal is OK. It does not reveal that you, the Hirer was driving, irrespective of whether you were or not

My question was about when you submitted that appeal, there is usually some drop down menus or options to tick or say in what capacity you are appealing, i.e. as "the driver", the "keeper", the "hirer" or whatever. What exactly did you select when submitting your original appeal?

There is no legal obligation on the Hirer/Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company and no inference can be taken from that.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #19 on: »
If you said "my wife" that is similarly not identifying the driver - this would only be an issue if you said "my wife, thegirltaff, who lives at [address]"

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #20 on: »
Ah, in that case yes I reffered to her as 'my wife'. I identified as hirer/lease on the initial drop down

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #21 on: »
OK. So you have not identified as the driver, whether you were or not. That is good.

Now, please answer the other question about the copies of the documents that were included with the Nth.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #22 on: »
No. The only thing I got from the notice to hirer was the redacted sheet I posted earlier and on the back of it is a generic terms which I've included below

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #23 on: »
Good. Easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known Hirer (the recipient of the Notice to Hirer (NtHK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtH is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known Hirer.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

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

As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #24 on: »
Fantastic. Thank you so much again, I can't thank you enough

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #25 on: »
One more thing, does that go to POPLA? They're only rejected one appeal so far, but I expect more as it's the same incident

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #26 on: »
No - the text b789 has shared is for your initial appeals to the operator. If you have already appealed them all, then a more expanded upon version will form one part of each of your POPLA appeals.

Can you confirm what stage each charge is up to?

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #27 on: »
I appealed all of them with that same statement I provided earlier.
Only 1 of them so far has been rejected by Euro Car Parks which has resulted in a POPLA reference to appeal to them. I've not heard anything back from any of the other initial appeals to Euro Car Parks. I've not appealed to POPLA yet as I came here first and I've been waiting for assistance before starting that process. So 5 of the charges are still being appealed with Euro Car Parks and 1 of them has been rejected by ECP and is awaiting to be appealed with POPLA

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #28 on: »
So, we need to know the dates of each NtK you received. The one you have shown is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable. However, all the others may not be the same.

So, please list each NtK in chronological order of the date of the alleged contravention and show alongside that date the "date issued" of that NtK.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - change of min stay and increase in cost
« Reply #29 on: »
13/08/24



27/08/24



10/09/24



17/09/24
 That was the one earlier, but I'm struggling to find that original share link