Jump to content

Euro Car Parks - Sainsbury's - Golders Green (ANPR) - 614 Finchley Road, Golders Green, London, NW11 7RX

Recommended Posts

Appeal sent to ECP today.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long do they have to consider my appeal? It has been 18 days and I've not had a response. Their website said it would be via email and I've not had anything, also checked spam.


Edit: Reading the letter, they said they would acknowledge the appeal within 14 days and will respond in 35.


Edit2: I'm an idiot, they emailed at the same time I sent the appeal which is the acknowledgement. I expected a further email.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

no time limit. It used to eb that POPLA read the POFA differently but since it changed to Ombudsmanserviceslimited running the show then you wont win by them being timed out.



You need to read stuff from about 3 years ago to understand roughly what the remit of POPLA is now as you will see stuff winning appeals back then that doesnt now.


Doesnt chage the law though just give the parking co a false expectation

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a response from the FOI request (I know you said not to bother).


No planning permission for ANPR or signage and Sainbury's likely don't own the land, need to speak with the planning dept.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obtained the title and plan. I'll have a better look at it later. Shows a right of way running through the land, guess they can't enforce tickets there?


P.S - Am I allowed to share these documents here?



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

that will be an interesting point to raise, the Sainsburys in Beddington Lane, Croydon has a bus route going through it as well as other industrial buildings that used the road the PE had put its cameras on.

refused to cancel a load of tickets until it got to court.


As usual they blamed other people for teir rubbish system by saying things like " you should have given us a whitelist of all of your visitors" when the reality is they ahd no right to operate ther cameras on the land it was snapping.


Old news now but the same argument applies, they have no right to process the data of peope using the right of way.

As for FOI requests, they are useful when used correctly.

You didnt need to use that law as the planning people are obliged to help you anyway and most likely will if you just ask them.

Most FOI bods at councils are lawyers so will automatically look for reasons NOT to give you the info.

Horses for courses.


so you need to know exactly where the cameras pick up their images as there are 2 roads that enter or touch this site.

dont forget, you are not in a hurry to tell ECP waht a bunch of wazzocks they are so collect everything you can and let them provide the rope to hang themselves.


So far it is all looking good.

Edited by dx100uk

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, the images are taken at each end of this right of way. You cannot enter or leave the land without being in view of the cameras, and the only access is the same access as the public right of way.


I have now contacted the planning enforcement to report lack of planning, and also pointed out that it's a public right of way. Probably won't go anywhere but wouldn't hurt to try.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

enforcement of the law for this is actually quite rare but does happen. See the PE Nottingham thread from about 3 years ago.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably better had you not written as the Council are unlikely to take PE to Court since it may leave the Council themselves open to challenges by motorists who feel that the Council should have acted much quicker in picking up on this illegal activity going on in their own backyard. The main thing is

though that once the car park has planning permission motorists can no longer use the lack of PP as a means of not paying.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

depends on the council, the Nottingham case the council made PE yake down their stuff whilst they made their decisions so putting them to some cost. other councils have insisted on the cameras and signs being covered. Now making them move their cameras away from the right of way will massive inconvenience ECP as then many people will slip past the cameras or they will have to install a couple more sets and get PP for that as well.


Convincing judges about the necessity of PP for signs has been an uphill struggle as the parkinmg co's like to refer to the wrong class of sign and say they have deemed consent when that isnt true. As PP can cost nothing it is sheer laziness or a fear of being knocked back that stops them

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appeal rejected by ECP. See attached.


Images taken of the car are not on entry or exit to the car park, they are on entry and exit to the public right of way, the images don't show the car entering the car park, or even parked in the car park. Plently of places to park around the service road and in front of garages which have no markings or restrictions.


Which points should I raise in the appeal to POPLA?

appeal rejection.pdf

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

you state quite simply that the images of the vehicle are taken on a public road and that no parking event actually took place so the parkimg co's rejection is just cut and paste twaddle.


It doesnt matter what POPLA say, it costs the parking co money for the appeal to be heard and you arent bound by anything it says anyway.


This is the sole purpose of appealing most of the time as POPLA's remit is so limited as to be almost useless.

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect, would be nice if they stopped it here. I'll fight in court if I have to, there is no proof at all.


I'll compile something later today.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some old threads where this was the issue. Quote them and the outcomes so they look even more stupid if they dont allow your appeal. Basically you are stating that there was no parking event on the land they manage and that ther cameras are just taking pictures of a public road and so no contract offerd in car park applies

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Planning control investigated and confirmed that they have breached planning control but decided not to do anything about it as it's not causing 'harm'.


Site: Sainsbury's, 612-614 Finchley Road, London, NW11 7RX,


Complaint: Installation of ANPR Camera System and signage


I refer to your complaint regarding a possible breach of planning control at the above address. I can inform you that the investigation has confirmed that a breach of control had indeed taken place, and I thank you for your assistance in this.


The power for a local planning authority to take enforcement action is discretionary, and such action should only be taken where it is clear that significant harm is likely to result. Although a technical breach of control under the above Act has occurred, it is not considered to be of sufficient significance in this case to justify formal enforcement action. Following full investigation, I can advise that it has been decided that no further action will be taken in this instance, and the enforcement case is to be closed.


Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss the matter further.


I am sorry that I could not be of greater assistance to you. Nevertheless, I thank you for bringing the matter to my attention.



Any way to escalate this further?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bunch of jobsworths.


Anyway, in any possible court action, no reason to just quote the letter up to "your assistance in this" and ignore the rest. This shows there is no planning permission, and you can't enter into an unlawful contract.


Another string to your bow against the fleecers.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could point out to the Council that Euro car parks are making money from motorists who do not know that without the Council permissions the signs in the car park cannot offer a contract to motorists. By not acting it could be construed that they are aiding and abetting the illegal actions

of Euro car parks. At the very least they should be demanding that the signs are taken down until permissions are granted.

The alternative is to complain to the local newspaper that the Council are turning a blind eye to the illegal actions of Euro and allowing the fleecing of their own


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, every person who has paid up has suffered significant harm and the council should thus offer to compenate them out of the salary fo the twonk that wrote this because thye cant be bothered to do their job properly.

Mind oyu if government officers were paid on performance parliament would owe us all a fortune this week

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got an email from POPLA to say they've made a decision and to check the portal, but the portal shows up as "We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course".


I emailed them but I don't expect a reply as they've not responded to any other email from me.


Does it just take a while to show up?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

POPLA refused the appeal. Complete rubbish response from someone they've dragged in.


They're saying that it is up to me to prove that my vehicle WASN'T parked in the car park.

They completely ignored that my appeal was based on no evidence of my vehicle being parked at all.

They ignored the point I raised about the ANPR not even covering the car park at all,

just the service road which is a PUBLIC right of way.


At one point, they even claim I (as the appellant) remained on site for too long!


The assessor’s summary of the operator’s case:

The operator issued the charge as the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period



The assessor’s summary of the appellant’s case:

The appellant states that the images provided show his vehicle on a public road. He says that no

parking took place and the operator has not provided any contradictory evidence of this fact.


Reasons for the assessor’s determination:

The driver has not been identified and as such, I will consider whether the Notice to Keeper

complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). On reviewing this document, I

can see that it fully complies with the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. The appellant was invited

to name the driver within 29 days. He has not provided these details to the operator and as

such, as keeper, he is now liable for the charge.


When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site

by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within

the car park.


The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the

signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions

clearly state: “Maximum stay 60 minutes”.


The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a

Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £70.

In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the vehicle was parked longer than the

maximum period allowed.


Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant

and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now

examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the

validity of the PCN.


I note the appellant’s comments that the images provided show his vehicle on a public road. He

says that no parking took place and the operator has not provided any contradictory evidence of

this fact.


However, this site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and

shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:50 and exiting at 15:11 which the appellant

does not dispute.


The car park in question is an ANPR camera system. The entry and exit points to this car park is

managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle

registration as it passes by. When the vehicle enters it creates one image which will then be

paired with the subsequent exit image. The system then compares the time a vehicle has been

on site with the amount of parking time purchased using the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). If

the vehicle overstays the maximum allowed time, the paid parking time or there is no payment

for the vehicle registration which was captured by the ANPR, a PCN will be created and sent out

to the registered keeper.


As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that

suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the

appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am satisfied that the appellant

remained on site for the time stipulated.


From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that there is signage at the entrance to

the car park and multiple signs are located throughout the site. I am satisfied therefore, that

appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing

to the contract.


In this case, the driver entered onto private land freely and in full acceptance of the terms of

parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park,

these are accepted.

Edited by dx100uk

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

and you expected anything else


please refrain from swearing even if vailed by abbreviation and using words and name calling that insults others

you not only put yourself at risk of libel but CAG also.

post above edit.





1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As siad, you were warned that this would be the likely outcome and that it is totally irrelevant to your situation and their prospects of a successful court action.


all that has happened is they are now emboldened to take it further bacuse someone has given them a piece of paper saying they COULD be right

Edited by honeybee13
Paras, typos

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just didn't think POPLA would leave it to me to prove the vehicle wasn't parked there.


I'll go all the way to court with them if they want to do that.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

and then they will lose because they wouldnt accept the correct arguments in the first place. they rely on people not knowing or wanting to fight.


They have also had to pay up £27 for this.


Read up on the limited terms of reference POPLA have to work to, when the contract was given to Ombudsmanservices Ltd the BPA made sure that the rules that were used before by the panel from the London boroughs appeals body were not transferred because their members were getting screwed by almost everyone who had the slightest knowledge on previous cases or contract law.


a number of other motoring advice forums used to have greater success at POPLA than we did collectively but lacked the people to go beyond there to help with the court process. Nev Metson used to post here about the finer points of parking law and I learned a lot from his advice. Also there are a number of contributors here who know a great deal about courts and small claims but dont regularly advise on parking but they will dive in if it gets that far wheras the other forums that are aimed just at parking matters lack that expertise.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've not heard anything from ECP or anyone else since the POPLA decision. How long do parking companies usually wait before sending threat-o-grams?


Also I need to change my address on my vehicle and won't be able to collect mail from my last address, what happens if they send court papers to my old address and I don't get them?

Edited by JoeyJoeC

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The part that I have highlighted in bold, I think it's not quite right.   I don't believe that if a consumer took a dealer to court, with the defect being a blown bulb, 25 days after taking ownership, they would win. Or else, people could just decide they didn't like the car anymore, put a knackered bulb in the car and reject it.   The severity of the defect does matter.   It needs to render the car not fit for purpose, not as described, or not of satisfactory quality. That's what defines whether a defect is really a defect or  not. Small but subtle point that needs to be clear to people reading the forum I think. Otherwise, people may think they can take a car back for any old reason.    
    • whatever it was you need the date and the rebate. then you enter that as a MINUS figure in the spready same as a PPI payment on the date they made it.  
    • Thanks dx, one more question 😕   the final payment I paid 6014.71 after 6 months, presumably because the ppi was front loaded and the loan was only 5000 that final payment included the rest of the total ppi (1174 added at the beginning)   if i got a rebate would it of shown on the statement as i cant remember from so many years ago!? 
    • Sangie5952   Thanks that has clarified what the ET1 form represents. We haven't made disclosures yet so I can include the relevant evidence then. Appreciate your help many thanks.  
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
  • Create New...