DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59289--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - PCN for overstaying Sainsburys Penn Inn
DIR By: ixxy
Date: February 22, 2025, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, Google street view suggests there were two fairly obvious
signs at the entrance you would have driven past to enter the
car park and there are others signs within the car park. The
images are 2 years old so could be out of date. The parking
company will have images of their signage and where it is placed
so will undoubtedly counter your pictures unless you can show
the signage is no longer where it was originally placed.
Appreciate you are a long way from court, just pointing out your
2 defence points, lack of signage and b789s wording issue are
unlikely to succeed at either the PPC appeals stage or at POPLA
unless you have additional evidence you haven't shared. Of
course it's up to you how you wish to proceed.
#Post#: 59296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - PCN for overstaying Sainsburys Penn Inn
DIR By: b789
Date: February 22, 2025, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) argument is a very valuable point that can
be argued. However, with all due respect
[member=4074]ixxy[/member] makes an unqualified generalisation
that every operator ignored this point and so it has never been
a winning point in any court case.
Many of the operators do include the “invitation” in their NtKs
and of those, almost every one of them include the word
“invitation” and simply lift the wording directly from PoFA:
--- Quote ---
> As we do not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver, you are now invited to
either—
>
> [indent](i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
>
> (ii)if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us of
the name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver and to pass this notice to the driver.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
That is all they need to comply with 9(2)(e)(i). Many do and we
do not use that point in any argument if they do.
However, just because no case has been won on that point
alone... yet, does not mean that it should not be used. Even if
it were a winning point in a claim at a hearing, does not make
it binding or even persuasive point for future claims. Unless
the point is appealed and is subsequently successful, then it
would become persuasive but not binding on judges in the lower
court.
But ask yourself why it has not been a winning point in a case
to date? That is because every single case that I’ve assisted
on, and there have been hundreds over the last year or so alone
since I introduced this point, has never reached a hearing in
front of a judge.
That does not mean that it should be dismissed as a worthless
point. Since I realised that this was a valid point in many
cases, I have had lengthy discussion about it with a district
judge and he agreed that it is a valid point and if it were ever
raised as a defence in any of the private parking cases he
hears, he would accept that as a valid point.
Until now, no one has actually pleaded that in a defence that he
has had to judge. That is down to the fact that no one else has
used that argument, mostly because it is overlooked by those
advising on defences.
Just recently, the very first case that I have been advising on
has actually been scheduled for a hearing in person. The defence
did not even mention 9(2)(e)(i) because it was based on
procedural failures by the claimant.
However, it is the very first case where the procedural judge
ignored all the procedural failings in the PoC. A WS has now
been produced for the defendant and it is scheduled to be argued
at a hearing, assuming the claimant doesn't discontinue, as is
their MO.
The argument about 9(2)(e)(i) can be seen in the WS here:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/court-claim-for-not-purchasing-a-ticket-(i-did)/msg59256/#msg59256
This case is also with ECP. However, unusually, ECP appears to
have been the landowner at the time of the alleged
contravention, which may be why they decided to pursue it. As
the hearing fee has not yet been paid, there is every likelihood
that it will also be discontinued. We'll see.
#Post#: 59297--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - PCN for overstaying Sainsburys Penn Inn
DIR By: b789
Date: February 22, 2025, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: amis66 link ---
>
> Thanks, I looked at that page and it clearly states that they
do not accept appeals via that web form.
>
--- End Quote ---
Send it anyway. Any initial appeal is going to be rejected
whatever is in it. If you're only after the POPLA code, the
simply send the following via their webform:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper 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 Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
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 registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK 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.
--- End Quote ---
The only other option is to send the appeal in a formal
complaint to ECP using the same form, as they are obliged to
treat any complaint as an appeal according to PPSCoP section
11.2 which states:
--- Quote ---
> Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it
considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a
parking charge, the parking operator must also treat it as an
appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in Clause
8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until
it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or
the complainant informs the parking operator that they do not
wish it to be so handled.
>
> NOTE: It might not be immediately apparent that a complaint
served as such relates to one or more specific parking charges,
possibly by way of a clarification that reveals that an appeal
would be worthwhile, hence parking operators are advised to
record and handle complaints as appeals until they are found
conclusively not to be so or patently refer to matters not
relevant to the validity of a parking charge.
--- End Quote ---
Don't try to overthink this. If POPLA doesn't work, then you
still don't pay and wait for the inevitable claim form and
defend it with our assistance. No one who is here receiving our
advice and following it pays a penny to ECP.
#Post#: 61253--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - PCN for overstaying Sainsburys Penn Inn
DIR By: amis66
Date: March 7, 2025, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected the appeal has been rejected.
On to POPLA appeal.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/nf22Nfs.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/njnrEY7.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/cYVrr69.jpeg
#Post#: 61271--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - PCN for overstaying Sainsburys Penn Inn
DIR By: amis66
Date: March 7, 2025, 6:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is my first draft of the appeal, any suggestions?
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by Euro
Car Parks for the alleged parking contravention on 30/01/2025 at
Sainsbury’s, Newton Abbot. My appeal is based on multiple
grounds, including the operator's failure to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and other procedural and
evidential shortcomings.
1. Failure to Comply with POFA Schedule 4
a. Non-Compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i): Required Invitation
Under POFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), the Notice to Keeper (NTK) must
explicitly invite the keeper to pay the parking charge or
provide the driver’s details. However, the wording on the back
of the NTK does not fulfil this requirement. Instead of a clear
invitation, the NTK states:
"You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days… 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…”
This language is unclear and fails to meet the strict legal
standard. The NTK does not properly invite the keeper to take
the specified actions but instead shifts the burden onto them
with vague and non-compliant wording.
b. Non-Compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(f): Keeper Liability
Timeframe
POFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that the parking charge becomes
payable by the keeper only if it remains unpaid for 28 days
after the NTK is deemed delivered. The NTK incorrectly states
that payment is required “28 days from the issue date.” This
misrepresentation creates a procedural defect and misleads the
keeper about their liability.
2. Breach of BPA Code of Practice
a. Early Debt Recovery Threats
The NTK threatens debt recovery action before the full appeal
period has expired, contrary to Section 8.1.2(e) of the BPA Code
of Practice. This unfair practice disregards the required
timelines and further undermines the validity of the Parking
Charge Notice.
b. Signage: Inadequate and Unclear
The signage at the site fails to meet the standards set out in
BPA Code of Practice Section 19. Specifically:
Poor Night-Time Visibility: The signs are not illuminated or
reflective, making them impossible to read after dark. Drivers
cannot reasonably be expected to comply with terms they cannot
see.
Ambiguity Regarding “Store Opening Hours”: The phrase “during
store opening hours” is not defined. With both a Sainsbury’s and
McDonald’s on-site, which have differing hours, it is unclear
which store the signage refers to.
Failure to Display Key Terms Clearly: The terms and conditions
outlined on the signage are not legible from a driver's position
in the car. The font size is too small, and important
information, such as restrictions or conditions of parking, is
not prominently displayed. This makes it difficult for drivers
to understand or comply with the stated terms, especially when
attempting to read the signage while entering or parking their
vehicle.
c. Signage: Poor Placement and Lack of Visibility from All
Directions
The signage at the entrance to the car park is not visible to
drivers approaching from all directions. Specifically:
Inadequate Positioning: When entering the car park from Torquay
Road, into Keyberry Road and then into the car park, the sign is
positioned behind the driver’s left shoulder, making it
impossible for the driver to view it clearly without stopping
and turning their head significantly. This means the signage
cannot be reasonably seen through the front windscreen of a
vehicle upon entry.
Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice: Section 19 of the BPA
Code of Practice mandates that signage must be placed so that it
is clearly visible to drivers when entering the site. The
current placement of the sign fails to meet this standard, as it
does not ensure clear and unambiguous communication to all
motorists.
Due to this placement issue, drivers entering the car park
cannot be expected to see, read, or agree to the terms of
parking. This lack of visibility undermines the formation of a
valid contract between the driver and the operator.
3. Lack of Landowner Authority
In accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, Euro
Car Parks is required to have written authority from the
landowner to issue parking charges and pursue enforcement. I
request that POPLA demand the operator provide:
A full, unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner.
Proof that the contract was valid on the date of the alleged
contravention.
If this evidence is not supplied, it must be concluded that Euro
Car Parks does not have the authority to issue or enforce this
Parking Charge Notice.
Summary of Failures
Non-compliance with POFA Paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f).
Threatening early debt recovery in breach of BPA Code of
Practice.
Inadequate and ambiguous signage, failing to form a valid
contract.
Failure to provide proof of landowner authority.
Given these significant issues, the Parking Charge Notice is
unenforceable, and I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and
cancel the charge in full.
This appeal is submitted with reference to the applicable legal
and procedural requirements, and I trust POPLA will give due
regard to these points.
Yours faithfully,
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page