Free Traffic Legal Advice

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?

"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?

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

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."



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

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?

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 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.

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)