ECP PCN - 'disabled bay' sans blue badge Morrisons car park sidcup - ** WON AT POPLA **

[Beesnees]

Issued today (again to 'er indoors), and altho there are 'mitigating circumstances'

for her egregious lack of consideration for those less mobile,

I don't wanna offer them at the moment for fear of appearing to excuse her reprehensible behaviour.

 

It was a Morrisons car park, free to use for 2 hrs, and I'm the RK.

I'm going to await the NTK as usual,

but at this stage (at the risk of being a bit previous),

 

 

just wanted to know the current position regarding disabled bays in private car parks,

and the extent of driver ID disclosure required by law.

 

 

So,

1. Is it still the case that disabled bays on private land are not legally enforceable (so presumably no locus standi?), and

 

2. When I get the NTK, am I obliged to tell them who the driver was at the time of the alleged infraction?

 

If no to 2., then presumably my response to the NTK will be the usual 'please take the matter up with the driver, and I'm only giving you 3 guesses.......

.....etc'?

[dx100uk]

who's the PPC?

[Beesnees]

I assume you mean the private parking company concerned, right?

 

As noted in the title, it's euro car parks.

[dx100uk]

 

my screen cropped it off sorry.

[Beesnees]

Damn clever those screens. They know how to bamboozle us.

[armadillo71]

I certainly do not condone abusing spaces designated for the less able.

 

But to enable keeper liability, then it is the same as your previous ecp invoice;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?441675-euro-car-parks-parking-charge-notice-.............&p=4718025&viewfull=1#post4718025

 

And there is no requirement to name the driver.

[Beesnees]

I certainly do not condone abusing spaces designated for the less able

 

Neither do I, and at the risk of sounding like I'm just making excuses for her, here are those 'mitigating circumstances'. She was driving around the car park for a good 20mins looking for a space that was wide enough to allow her to open the doors on both sides so she could also extract a 9mnth old baby from her safety seat. None were found, and the only available spaces........well, you can surmise the rest.

 

This was a 'last resort' solution to an intractable problem, and the regular bays are arguably too narrow if they prevent you from performing such a basic action. She certainly doesn't make a habit of it, and 20 mins of fruitless searching for a space that was fit for purpose is more than could reasonably be expected of her, bearing in mind her increasingly grumpy passenger.

 

I know that still doesn't excuse what she did, but force majeure can lead to a regrettable decision.

[armadillo71]

Well the RK can put that to ecp when they receive the NTK, but it won't get it cancelled....

[Beesnees]

The RK is me (as stated in my first post), and I know better than to engage in a pointless exercise with the ppc. Aside from which, that would immediately identify the driver, which I thought was a defo no no, no?

[ericsbrother]

usual route for a windscreen ticket

- wait for the NTK and that should arrive between 29 and 56 days after the event

and then post that up

 

 

ECP are rubbish at wording the NTK claim properly so there is a good chance they will fall down on their backsides at that point.

 

 

If not then we will look at lots of other things such as whether they still have a contract with Morrisons at that store

and whether the disabled spaces are really there as far as planning consent goes.

 

You are never obliged to name the driver, the PoFA allows the operator to chase the keeper

if certain conditions are met and that is the first thing that is being tested.

[Beesnees]

Sounds like a plan, & dunno if it still holds true, but previous advice was that ECP 'doesn't do court' anyway, so just an admin dance for nothing really. All bark & no bite, etc.

 

Begs the question, why not just ignore, ignore, ignore, like we used to in the good old days before the law made us work a bit harder.

[ericsbrother]

because if they comply with paras 6-9 of the PoFA a keeper liability is created and they can then sue the RK.

If you do not defend using the appeals system available a judge may well find in their favour

because there was a remedy/process available to you and you elected not to use it.

 

 

Any evidence is examined on balance of probability and the people involved may be judged as reliable witnesses or not.

Dont use the appeals mechanism and you become an unreliable witness.

 

The law also makes them work harder, they cannot clamp.

have to offer an independent adjudication process

and are bound by that where you aren't.

 

 

It also costs them money and doesnt cost you so theoretically they are less likely to dole out suspect tickets.

[Beesnees]

I hear ya, & of course I'm not gonna present them with an open goal, so I will still go thru the motions regardless. But I believe your reply still assumes 'they do court'. If there isn't a cat in hell's chance they're gonna pursue me, it kinda makes the whole exercise appear like a pointless ritual.

 

But yeah, ok, thanks for taking the trouble to explain. Duly noted. Thanks also to Armadillo. Will post up if/when that NTK arrives.

[armadillo71]

The RK is me (as stated in my first post), and I know better than to engage in a pointless exercise with the ppc. Aside from which, that would immediately identify the driver, which I thought was a defo no no, no?

 

 

How would the RK stating that they were not the driver, then relaying what the driver has told them, identify the driver? It doesn't.

 

Sounds like a plan, & dunno if it still holds true, but previous advice was that ECP 'doesn't do court' anyway, so just an admin dance for nothing really. All bark & no bite, etc.

 

 

They may not ' do court ' now, but they have six years to change their stance.

 

Begs the question, why not just ignore, ignore, ignore, like we used to in the good old days before the law made us work a bit harder.

 

 

Because of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 - Keeper liability.

[Beesnees]

Well, for a start, if they trawl thru this forum, there is at least a theoretical possibility they could ID the driver from the background disclosed above.

Otherwise.........yeah, I s'pose you have a point.

 

But even so, as you admitted yourself, as a 'defence' it amounts to very little, if anything.

It's still an automatic rejection.

 

I just hate the idea of giving them any ammo with which to shoot me down.

Gives them the initiative, the upper hand.

 

The rest is fair comment, already largely made by your colleague I believe.

[armadillo71]

Yes the rissoles do trawl and monitor the private parking forums , as we do have an effect on their income stream, albeit only slightly.

 

Positively ID'ing the driver in this thread is very theoretical imo..

 

I was not suggesting that you would be using the mitigation as your appeal, but you offered it up , so I was somewhat sarcastically pointing out it will fail...

 

But in saying that, the initial appeal IS the only place where mitigation can and should get a charge cancelled. But of course a PPC will not cancel it unless they are told to.

 

I don't know what ammo you think you will be giving them, as your appeal will be based on no keeper liability, no locus standi and signage for starters.

[Beesnees]

Actually, I withheld the 'excuse' until your comment about not condoning such behaviour was made, precisely because I knew it did not amount to a defence that would overturn the speculative invoice. I simply wanted to show that there were extenuating circumstances, and that she doesn't routinely/habitually park in disabled bays for no reason at all.

 

Since I know in advance it will be shot down, I prefer not to use it at all. To do so would confer a psychological advantage to them that I prefer to retain for myself. What's the point of a defence that you know is gonna fail?

 

I agree about the odds of them linking the invoice with this thread, near as dammit.

 

The real surprise thus far is that none of you have asked me to post up a redacted copy of the NTD. Presumably that's because mea culpa validates it regardless, right?

[silverfox1961]

Hi

Having done a quick check ECP are members of POPLA so the appeal you will do to them will at least be assessed on its merits.

 

Another check suggests that ECP have taken no cases to court in the last year.

 

Morrisons may not be the landowner so it is always worth finding this out even if you do not directly benefit from it. Can you go back and photograph the signs then convert them to pdf and upload them for us to laugh at. You would be surprised at how many signs fall down on compliance.

[Beesnees]

So just to be clear, you are suggesting I should use the excuse in my appeal?

 

Landowner & signage - will do.

 

Thanks.

[silverfox1961]

For the appeal to ECP, they will reject you out of hand so make any claim you want. (your dad's pet budgie died) as all you want is the POPLA code where a full appeal can be made using whatever you can find.

ECP will state that since the Beavis Case, the charge is valid but that was for one car park and includes others that the PPC pays a fee for the privilege of managing the car park (which I doubt ECP do)

[armadillo71]

To be clear;

 

You wait for the NTK. Get pictures of the signage whilst waiting.

 

When you receive the NTK, you compare it to the NTD and check them both against schedule 4 of the POFA.

 

Your appeal will be that there is no keeper liability, ecp have a lack of standing, and probably that the signage is unclear.

 

Ecp will most certainly reject this but it will currently win at POPLA.

 

 

Morrisons/the landowner will not cancel this unless you do have a blue badge imo.

[Beesnees]

OK, I think I've got it (by jove). Thanks fellas.

 

It's actually not unknown for ECP to dispense with the NTK altogether. I was 'done' for a similar offence about 3-4 yrs ago (different circumstances, of course). but heard absolutely nothing after the initial NTD. It was the easiest ride I've had yet from a PPC.

[dx100uk]

since then things have changed

you no longer ever ignore them

[Beesnees]

Cross purposes? I was referring to the NTD. There was no NTK follow-up, and I'm not aware of any repercussions that followed my failure to respond to the NTD.

[ericsbrother]

As you say, ECP are a bit random when it comes to sending out NTK's and will then often not follow up an appeal even if they get that far if it looks like you are up for an argument.