DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 33098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
DIR By: NBSCMN
Date: August 12, 2024, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok I see.
Can you point me in the right direction for this appeal? It
looks complaint with POFA so I can't use that. What else would I
be able to say
#Post#: 33104--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2024, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to get a move on. The NtK is not strictly PoFA
compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the
word, for the keeper to pay the charge.
The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid
parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this
invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are
insufficient.
The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to
fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice
non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient.
As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable
for the charge. Only the driver and, as the keeper, you under no
legal obligation whatsoever, to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking company. Therefore the operator
should take the matter up with the driver.
Also, ECP signs are notorious for their failure to comply with
the BPA Code of Practice as they fail to adequately alert the
driver to the charge for breaching the terms.
Here is the successful outcome of a recent POPLA appeal for
exactly the same reasons as yours with ECP. Read it and take
note of the points appealed on and the assessors reasons for
upholding the appeal. Whilst this was for a Hired vehicle and
they failed to fully comply wi the requirements of PoFA, you
have the reasoning for their failure to comply with PoFA for
your appeal. You also throw in all the other points too,
especially about the signage:
--- Quote ---
> Operator: Euro Car Parks
>
> Decision: Successful
> Assessor Name: Robert Andrews
>
> Assessor summary of operator case
>
> The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to
the vehicle being parked for longer than the maximum period
allowed.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
>
> The appellant has raised the following points from their
grounds of appeal:
>
> • They were the hirer of the vehicle.
> • The parking operator has failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer
that is fully compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012. They refer to paragraphs 13 and 14 of PoFA in this
regard and note that the PCN must be delivered within a relevant
period and the parking operator must be provided with a copy of
documents mentioned here.
> • The parking operator has not shown that they are pursuing
the driver for the PCN. As they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the
hirer liable, they must hold the driver liable. They also do not
have to name the driver and there is no presumption that the
hirer or keeper was the driver at the time.
> • There is no evidence of landowner authority and the operator
has been put to strict proof regarding this and it cannot be
assumed that because they have some signs, they can issue PCNs
on this land. They refer to section 7 of the British Parking
Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
> • There is insufficient and unclear signage. They refer to the
ParkingEye v Beavis case and how the PCN amount was the largest
part of the sign.
> • They state the PCN does not show where the vehicle was
parked. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the
appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to:
> • The parking operator did not provide them with the hire
documents included within the case file.
> • There is no evidence that the landowner contract was
renewed.
> • The font on the signage is so small that is cannot be read
from even a close distance. The above evidence will be
considered in making my determination.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
>
> I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
>
> Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals
with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an
impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be
appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only
assessing the appeal for POPLA code: ooooooo which was issued to
PCN number ooooooo.
>
> Within their appeal to both POPLA and the parking operator,
the driver’s details have not been provided. PoFA is a law that
allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the
registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not
identified. PoFA lets parking operators transfer liability for a
parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer
of the vehicle if certain rules are followed.
>
> The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from
the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but
there is no evidence that the required documents were sent to
the appellant. I acknowledge the parking operator has referred
to the Memorandum of Understanding however, as it is a
requirement of PoFA that the documents be sent to the appellant,
this is not sufficient to show they have complied with PoFA.
>
> The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as
I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address
these.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 33115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
DIR By: NBSCMN
Date: August 12, 2024, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thank you very helpful!!!
with there not being an invitation for the keeper to pay. So
this doesnt count as an invitiation for the keeper to pay? Or
are you saying that it needs to be much more specific. As in -
EPC invites you, the keeper, to pay this fine if the driver is
not identified?
Would this be section (9)(2)(b) of POFA?
' If after 28 days beginning with the day after that on which
this notice is given, the Parking Charge Notice has not been
paid in full,
we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains
unpaid '
'You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is
presumed
to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking
charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the
name and current address of the driver, we have the right to
recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you'.
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You need to get a move on. The NtK is not strictly PoFA
compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the
word, for the keeper to pay the charge.
>
> The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid
parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this
invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are
insufficient.
>
> The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure
to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice
non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient.
>
> As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable
for the charge. Only the driver and, as the keeper, you under no
legal obligation whatsoever, to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking company. Therefore the operator
should take the matter up with the driver.
>
> Also, ECP signs are notorious for their failure to comply with
the BPA Code of Practice as they fail to adequately alert the
driver to the charge for breaching the terms.
>
> Here is the successful outcome of a recent POPLA appeal for
exactly the same reasons as yours with ECP. Read it and take
note of the points appealed on and the assessors reasons for
upholding the appeal. Whilst this was for a Hired vehicle and
they failed to fully comply wi the requirements of PoFA, you
have the reasoning for their failure to comply with PoFA for
your appeal. You also throw in all the other points too,
especially about the signage:
>
> [quote]Operator: Euro Car Parks
>
> Decision: Successful
> Assessor Name: Robert Andrews
>
> Assessor summary of operator case
>
> The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to
the vehicle being parked for longer than the maximum period
allowed.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
>
> The appellant has raised the following points from their
grounds of appeal:
>
> • They were the hirer of the vehicle.
> • The parking operator has failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer
that is fully compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012. They refer to paragraphs 13 and 14 of PoFA in this
regard and note that the PCN must be delivered within a relevant
period and the parking operator must be provided with a copy of
documents mentioned here.
> • The parking operator has not shown that they are pursuing
the driver for the PCN. As they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the
hirer liable, they must hold the driver liable. They also do not
have to name the driver and there is no presumption that the
hirer or keeper was the driver at the time.
> • There is no evidence of landowner authority and the operator
has been put to strict proof regarding this and it cannot be
assumed that because they have some signs, they can issue PCNs
on this land. They refer to section 7 of the British Parking
Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
> • There is insufficient and unclear signage. They refer to the
ParkingEye v Beavis case and how the PCN amount was the largest
part of the sign.
> • They state the PCN does not show where the vehicle was
parked. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the
appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to:
> • The parking operator did not provide them with the hire
documents included within the case file.
> • There is no evidence that the landowner contract was
renewed.
> • The font on the signage is so small that is cannot be read
from even a close distance. The above evidence will be
considered in making my determination.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
>
> I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
>
> Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals
with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an
impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be
appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only
assessing the appeal for POPLA code: ooooooo which was issued to
PCN number ooooooo.
>
> Within their appeal to both POPLA and the parking operator,
the driver’s details have not been provided. PoFA is a law that
allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the
registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not
identified. PoFA lets parking operators transfer liability for a
parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer
of the vehicle if certain rules are followed.
>
> The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from
the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but
there is no evidence that the required documents were sent to
the appellant. I acknowledge the parking operator has referred
to the Memorandum of Understanding however, as it is a
requirement of PoFA that the documents be sent to the appellant,
this is not sufficient to show they have complied with PoFA.
>
> The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as
I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address
these.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 33118--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2024, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've already stated, it is paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted;
--- Quote ---
> 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—
>
> [indent](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—
>
> [indent](i)to pay the unpaid parking
charges;[/indent][/indent]
--- End Quote ---
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012
[indent]This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to
hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking
charge, the notice to the keeper must include:
An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation,
and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.
The Act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to
fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice
non-compliant.
Non-Compliance Issue
If the parking charge notice fails to include a clear
"invitation to pay" or any synonym of the word "invitation",
this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an
explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the
charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of
PoFA 2012.
Significance of Full Compliance
Strict Liability: The law mandates full compliance with the
specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.
Partial or Even Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the
notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of
a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw.
The operator cannot rely on partial or substantial compliance -
every element as specified in the legislation must be present
and correct.
Consequences for the Operator
Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial
element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking
charge.
Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the
keeper, which significantly weakens their case if the NtK or
other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
Conclusion
In summary, an NtK that does not include an explicit
"invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully
compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the PoFA
2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even
if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any
obligation to pay.
#Post#: 33162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
DIR By: NBSCMN
Date: August 12, 2024, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
How does this sound
----------
1. No evidence of Landowner Authority
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land
then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the
contract with the landowner.
The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting
out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine
resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto'
charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement
dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence
to define what this operator is authorised to do, and
when/where.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to
merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that
the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts
with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce
the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding
land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner
only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often
being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the
case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might
in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it
is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the
services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging
days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I
believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the
BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site
boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the
landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as
the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to,
or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the
signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether
they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal
agreement.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements
and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any
outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the
written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent)
prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of
operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that
may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining
signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement
2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or
legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice
of the sum of the parking charge itself
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it
discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a
motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires
that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA
2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice'
means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in
accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in
regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including,
the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such
requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which:
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers
who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe
this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own
assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the
location. Having considered the signage in place at this
particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the
BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the
signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £85,
which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at
all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking
charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at
all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair
opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge,
which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar
'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only
to the signs at that site and the unique interests and
intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and
not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme
Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car
park and those facts only:
HTML http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN
In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest
font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms
were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large
lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park,
according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs
under dispute in this case:
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the
'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the
Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the
specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and
'agreement on the charge' existed.
Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and
hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately
obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible,
being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a
background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close
together in order to fit more information into a smaller space
can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one
which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the
car.
It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking
charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code
of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking
charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at
all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and
there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the
parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance
either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and
could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision
5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found
as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park
where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists
the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions
before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the
operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking
space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal
but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be
displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an
inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as
to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of
lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by
this guide:
HTML http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter
Height Visibility is discussed here:
HTML http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx
''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it,
as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be.
For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside
your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the
people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just
fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a
nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3'
or even larger.''
...and the same chart is reproduced here:
HTML http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html
''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind
the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when
mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter
height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet.
Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max
viewing distance.''
So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and
the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far
too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor
car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall
or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the
perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front
of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or
magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.
Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of
all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park
and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been
effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' -
i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering,
as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A
reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the
'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of
Practice, taking all information into account, would require a
parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more
transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with
fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast.
Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement
for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer
contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of
subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible
language and it is legible.
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this
appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact
'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'
about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was
NOT deemed bound by them.
This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and
supports my argument, not the operator's case:
HTML http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms
on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed
with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and
cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no
contract capable of being established. The driver in that case
(who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a
contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the
plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was
not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were
obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen
and read from a driver's seat before parking.
So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of
where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same
lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at
that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally,
I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear
from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in
isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be
read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of
close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient
to disprove this.
Please see the parking sign notice for Sainsbury’s Pimlico
below.
---------------
2. The NtK is not strictly PoFA compliant as there is no
"invitation", nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay
the charge.
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 states that the notice must explicitly invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The wording must
clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect
suggestions are insufficient.
The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to
fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice
non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient.
As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable
for the charge. I, as the keeper, have no legal obligation to
identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of
Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked
versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before
deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous
times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph
9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
Euro Car Parks’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at
[enter location].”
The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered Sainsbury’s
Pimlico at [xxxxx and departed at [xxxxxxx]”. At no stage do
Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the “period of parking to
which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.
Euro Car Parks NtK states “we are using cameras to capture
images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to
calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Euro
Car Parks to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in
place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold
the keeper liable as a result.
By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry
and exit times, Euro Car Parks are not able to definitively
state the period of parking.
I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle
in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration
claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.
----------------------
3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time,
merely two
images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle
in question.
There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park
in question.
The Notice to Keeper states:
“On 28/5/24 the vehicle: xxxxxxx entered Sainsbury’s Pimlico, at
xxxxxx and departed at xxxxx on xxxxxxx.”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of
parking. By Euro
Car Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to
be the entry
and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single
period of parking
and this cannot reasonably be assumed.
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would
fail the requirements
of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the
period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking
companies are
required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in
correct working order.
I require ECP to provide records with the location of the
cameras used in this
instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment
was checked,
calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which
stamps the photo
images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
----------------------------------
4. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the
ANPR Data will be
used for.
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR
data will be used
for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer
Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to
indicate the
'commercial intent' of the cameras.
Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators
that they may use
ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in
private car
parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and
transparent
manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must
tell drivers that
the operator is using this technology and what it will use the
data captured by
ANPR cameras for.
Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements
because these car
park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data
would be used for,
which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary
to the BPA CoP and
Consumer law.
The Euro Car Parks’ main sign in the Sainsbury’s Pimlico car
park (see Figure 1)
states:
“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates
and
calculate the length of stay”
Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information
that these camera
images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices.
There is
absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras
are in any way
related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking
Charge
Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking
Charge Notices
being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras
and instead
merely states (see Figure 1):
“This car park is patrolled. Please observe the following
conditions to avoid a parking charge notice of £85”
In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable
(as is the case
with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it
contract) and where there
is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of
contra proferentem
shall apply against the party responsible for writing those
terms.
This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including:
Paragraph 68:
Requirement for Transparency:
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer
contract, or a
consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of
subsection (1) if it is
expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
and Paragraph 69:
Contract terms that may have different meanings:
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice,
could have different
meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is
to prevail.
Withholding material information from a consumer about the
commercial (not
security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair
term under The
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because
the
operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent’:
HTML http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made
Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a
misleading
omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the
matters in paragraph
(2) -
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a
manner
which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial
intent, unless
this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it
causes or is
likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional
decision he
would not have taken otherwise.''
#Post#: 33174--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2024, 6:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, you’ve copied and pasted most of that from somewhere. No
idea why you’re leading on landowner authority. That should
probably be your last point.
Signage is probably best for first point followed by PoFA
failure to hold keeper liable and then no evidence to show the
person they are pursuing is the driver and so on.
#Post#: 48776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed at sainsburys pimlico eurocarparks
DIR By: Maz
Date: December 7, 2024, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to resurrect an old thread but the information is really
helpful here. I've just posted but the overstay was a shorter
period
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page