ECP Rejected appeal - POPLA Advice with original NTK Lost

[davyatsea]

Hi there, my wife received a NTK for overstaying car park... 'Breach of Terms and Conditions. She made her appeal to ECP, but it came back rejected. At no time has she identified herself as the driver, just herself as the Keeper. I know the driver purchased a ticket valid from 1333 and expired at 1733. ANPR stated that the vehicle entered the car park at 1329 and left at 1808.

So, as the keeper, she is being chased for £60 (discounted) or £100 (full cost for a period of 39 minutes. She submitted an appeal using a template found on a similar website, but surprise, it came back rejected. I have a POPLA code and intend to appeal online on her behalf Its just what category is best to use, and what detail I need to put in the box. I won't attach any documents to this post, as I'm sure they are similar to most that have been uploaded already. The research i have done so far has led to confusion, hence asking directly. Only snag is that she has lost the original NTK, so all I have to post (if need be are her letter of appeal and the rejection letter from ECP - both redacted.

Thank you.

[ostell]

Have really good search for the NTK, it's the basis if everything

[charitynjw]

Would this be a fair assessment of the timeline?
Entry captured by ANPR - 13:29
Ticket purchased a few mins later for 4hrs parking - 13:33
Ticket expired - 17:33
Exit captured by ANPR 18:08

So on what basis was the appeal made?

[davyatsea]

I've added redacted versions of the appeal letter that my wife sent, along with the rejection. She had taken the NTK into work to try and research during her break times, but it looks like she has genuinely mislaid it.

[davyatsea]

Seeing as a ticket was purchased for a 4 hour period, there is a period of 40 minutes where £100 or £60 reduced is the loss to the landowner (if that makes sense).

[charitynjw]

Seeing as a ticket was purchased for a 4 hour period, there is a period of 40 minutes where £100 or £60 reduced is the loss to the landowner (if that makes sense).

Unfortunately that is so, as decided in the ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) case.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html

But often there are technical defences which can be used, & your case could possibly be distinguished from 'Beavis', depending on the facts.

You'll need to obtain a copy of the NtK & pictures of the relevant signage.

Ps...a nice touch, those kisses on the bottom of the appeal letter. Unfortunately those parking co peeps have cold, cold hearts!

[davyatsea]

Pictures attached of signage if this helps at all.

[charitynjw]

Neither of those signs display any kind of offer to park or terms & conditions of doing so.

I would imagine there are other signs, especially near the P&D machine.

[davyatsea]

Photo attached of signage. Had problems uploading this earlier.

[davyatsea]

Update... Just found the original NTK

[charitynjw]

If you check the stated location the NtK, from a quick check it would appear that Kings Heath is an area & Institute Rd is a road within that area.
A road with many different private parking sites.
PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, s9, requires the site to be accurately identified...a mandatory requirement.
So as long as the driver has not been ID'd, the NtK is toilet paper!

[davyatsea]

If you check the stated location the NtK, from a quick check it would appear that Kings Heath is an area & Institute Rd is a road within that area.
A road with many different private parking sites.
PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, s9, requires the site to be accurately identified...a mandatory requirement.
So as long as the driver has not been ID'd, the NtK is toilet paper!

That is correct in that Kings Heath is an area and Institute Road is a road within the area. The driver has not been identified in the appeal, or any other document.

[charitynjw]

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...dule/4/enacted

Make sure that any communications are from the registered keeper.
Do not ID the driver in any way.

[davyatsea]

Checking through, the notice just stated the location as Institute Road, Kings Heath. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the location should be stated as Institute Road car park. A search of google maps tells me that the road, Institute Road is a distance of 0.31 miles and is not managed in its entirety by ECP. Only in the second paragraph of the NTK is there reference to any car park. Would I be right in being able to use this in any appeal to POPLA, and also the perceived cost to landowner of overstaying by 40 minutes? I do not believe that this is a fair and proportionate cost for the landowner.

[charitynjw]

Checking through, the notice just stated the location as Institute Road, Kings Heath. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the location should be stated as Institute Road car park. A search of google maps tells me that the road, Institute Road is a distance of 0.31 miles and is not managed in its entirety by ECP. Only in the second paragraph of the NTK is there reference to any car park. Would I be right in being able to use this in any appeal to POPLA, and also the perceived cost to landowner of overstaying by 40 minutes? I do not believe that this is a fair and proportionate cost for the landowner.

Yep.....that's what I was trying to point out....badly!
& yes, can be used in any appeal/court case.
'Fair & proportionate' is pretty much a dead duck since the 2015 ParkingEye/Beavis Supreme Court case.