Euro car park

[SweetRita22]

Hi,

Sorry for the delay but this was our final response to POPLA based on the advice you gave us. Hopefully it is close to what you had in mind. Anyway, 4 to 6 weeks until the decision now apparently,

Thanks again for all your help.

Response to ECP evidence for POPLA.pdf

[des8]

Keeping fingers crossed for you

[SweetRita22]

Hi Des8 and other members. I have finally received the POPLA decision and they have rejected the appeal. I would be interested to know whether anyone has any further advice going forward? Thank you again for all your help so far. Please see the detailed result below.


Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Bethany Young
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display ticket was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper; they were not driving on the day. • The vehicle is registered with the council under the blue badge scheme. • The driver was suffering a hypoglycaemia episode at the time and needed to use the facilities on site. • The signs are contradictory and cause confusion as there was a ‘no parking sign’. • They say if parking is not permitted, they cannot contract to park there. • They have quoted a different PCN reason and state to remain within the no parking area "without authorisation" is trespassing. • They state only the landowner can claim for damages due to trespassing. • The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and they cannot transfer liability. • They advise the signs are difficult to read due to the size and colour of the font, especially from a distance with impaired eyesight. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal stating the parking operator has ignored the ‘no parking’ signs. They raise that the wording in the PCN template is not in the one sent to them. They have raised a third-party link regarding Gladstones solicitors. The appellant has raised section 27 and Appendix B from the BPA Code of Practice. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. A photo of the parking operator’s terms and conditions of the car park. 2. Photographs of the no parking signs. 3. The Notice to Keeper that was issued. 4. Photographs of the font size on the signs. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9(2) “(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; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.” The appellant has provided the Notice to Keeper that was received. I am satisfied that this Notice to Keeper correctly conveys this information. The parking operator states the keeper has ‘28 days beginning the day after the that on which the notice is given’ and that they must pass the notice to the driver or it has the right to recover the costs from the keeper. The appellant has highlighted part of the paragraph which states this information. I can conclude this is compliant with PoFA 2012 requirements and liability has been successfully transferred to the registered keeper. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. I note the appellant has raised section 27 of the BPA Code of Practice. This section contains the operational requirements for Scotland and Northern Ireland and is therefore not applicable for this case as the contravention took place in England. The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable. It is section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. The parking operator has issued the PCN as no valid pay and display ticket was purchased. The parking operator has not issued the charge for parking without authorisation and it is not claiming that the vehicle parked in a no parking zone. Therefore, I am unable to consider any evidence or grounds relating to trespassing in a no parking area as this is not relevant to the parking event. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £75 PCN will be issued to drivers who do not pay for the length of their stay on the car park. The vehicle was captured on site for 22 minutes without a valid payment. As it remained in the land for a reasonable period of time, I am satisfied the driver contracted to park there. I appreciate the appellant has also provided an image of the terms and conditions sign on the site. I am satisfied the signs use a contrasting font and are easy to read. I appreciate the appellant provided close up images to show the font size used, however, I am satisfied if the driver’s eyesight meets the requirements to legally drive, then they will have been able to read the signs in the car park. If the driver was not able to read the terms and conditions, they could have left the site and found alternative parking arrangements. Whilst I appreciate the vehicle may be registered under the blue badge scheme, the signs clearly state that disabled badge holders must also pay for their parking. The blue badge handbook page 17 also states: “Off-Street car park parking operators should provide parking spaces for disabled people. However, it is up to the car park owner to decide whether badge holders can park free of charge. Do not assume you can always park for free”. This means that disabled blue badge concessions may not necessarily be applicable on private land. It is the driver’s responsibility to read the signs and fully comply to the terms and conditions of the car park. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the parking operator has demonstrated it had the authority to issue and pursue parking charges. The contract commenced in June 2018 and has an automatic renewal. The appellant has raised a third-party link regarding Gladstone solicitors. This is a third-party company and is not involved with either the issuing of the parking charge or the appeal process. I do not consider this relevant to the appeal. Any complaints regarding this company will need to be raised with them directly. After considering the evidence from both parties, no valid pay and display ticket was purchased and therefore the motorist did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

[des8]

Not surprised!

You can appeal the decision.

If you do, concentrate on POFA2012.Schedule 4, 9 (2) states:
"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; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

The use of the word MUST mandates that the PCN must INVITE the keeper

.
The NTK might satisfy Bethany that the information is correctly conveyed, but it does not IMO comply with the mandated requirements of the act

[SweetRita22]

Hi, thank you again for your support. I felt sure that the POPLA decision would be favourable, as after studying the facts, I totally agreed with your advice about the NTK not being POFA compliant. I don't intend to give in and pay this. The more I have investigated Eurocarparks, the more I learn about how they are ripping innocent people off. I have also googled POPLA and Bethany Young. She appears to have a terrible track record of refusing appeals that are clearly mistakes on the part of the parking operator. Could you please point me in the direction of who to contact, to make an appeal, as POPLA have stated that their decision is final and cannot be appealed?

[des8]

Sorry, my mistake.
You can't appeal a PoPLA decision (I was thinking of the FOS when i wrote that) but you can make a complaint.
(https://www.popla.co.uk/contact?type=complaint) about the poor standard of English Language comprehension of their assessors!
It won't change the result but might make you feel better and hopefully the courts will agree with you (but be on notice that small claims track is a bit of a lottery

In a month or so they will chase you for their money, and then probably farm it out to debt collectors before issuing court claim.