Euro Car Parks – Paid Monthly Permit / Vehicle Swap Glitch – Morrisons Bangor

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @Hondaenthusiast. Before going any further, I would need to see considerably more than the summary above.

First and most importantly, has the driver been identified anywhere? I would need to see at least one complete Notice to Keeper, together with the precise wording of the original appeal to ECP and both POPLA appeals. There is no point making assumptions about keeper liability until we know exactly what has already been said.

I would also want to know which parking app was being used and exactly how the monthly permit worked. Was the permit purchased from ECP directly, through JustPark or through some other provider? What evidence exists that the registration was changed and then reverted? Are there screenshots, emails, account history or app logs?

I would also want photographs of the actual signage at Morrisons Bangor, particularly the entrance sign and the contractual terms. What exactly does it say a permit holder must do? Does it expressly require the permit to be registered against the vehicle being parked, and what does it say happens if that registration is incorrect? That matters because ultimately ECP has to establish the contractual term allegedly breached.

On the Code of Practice point, there is potentially something useful here, but it needs putting accurately. The current Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) says at clause 6.3 that where a motorist must provide a VRM online or through an app, the operator must have and follow a documented policy and procedure designed to avoid issuing or enforcing charges arising from accidental keying errors.

More significantly, Annex F expressly identifies as a major keying error a situation where the motorist has paid but entered the wrong vehicle registration, including their previous car. The PPSCoP says that such circumstances warrant reduction of the first parking charge for that contravention to £20 for 14 days, subject to the evidential and procedural requirements in Annex F.

However, I would be careful about assuming that provision automatically disposes of all seven PCNs. Annex F currently says that the £20 reduction applies only to the first parking charge issued to the vehicle for the specific contravention, provided payment is made within 14 days and no independent appeal is lodged. That is why I need to see exactly how ECP has characterised each alleged breach and what has already happened procedurally.

There may also be a stronger factual argument than simply saying "major keying error". If there was an active paid monthly permit, renewed on 16 July, the old vehicle was disposed of/acquired out of the keeper's possession that same day, and the replacement vehicle was the vehicle thereafter being parked, this appears on its face to be an obvious vehicle-substitution problem rather than someone trying to obtain unpaid parking. But whether that defeats the charge contractually depends on the wording of the permit scheme and signage.

As for POPLA, I would not place excessive confidence in them. The appeals need to be argued on the actual contractual terms, the current PPSCoP, ECP's evidence, and—if relevant—PoFA compliance. Merely saying "I had paid, therefore there was no loss" is not enough after ParkingEye v Beavis. POPLA also disregard mitigation altogether. I would therefore want to see the exact POPLA grounds before predicting where those two cases are likely to go.

Regarding the other five PCNs, do not just start paying debt collectors because the ECP appeal window has expired. Debt collectors have no adjudicative powers. They are completely powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear, But equally, I would not formulate the eventual response until the documentation has been examined and we know whether ECP can pursue the keeper and precisely what contractual breach is alleged.

I would also go back to Morrisons, but this time properly. Their own website has a specific section for customers who have received a parking charge, and the Bangor store is confirmed by Morrisons as having a three-hour maximum parking period.

Who exactly was approached at the store? Was it the store manager or duty manager, or merely somebody on the customer-service desk? Morrisons are normally one of the more useful retailers when a genuine customer can demonstrate that a charge has arisen from an obvious parking-system problem. I would escalate beyond a verbal conversation with floor staff and ask Morrisons to intervene in relation to the entire set of seven PCNs, supplying the permit evidence, vehicle-change evidence and PCN references.

So before doing anything else, please upload:

1. one complete ECP Notice to Keeper;
   
2. the original ECP appeal;
   
3. ECP's rejection;
   
4. the exact POPLA appeal wording;
   
5. the monthly permit receipt/account record;
   
6. the V5C/new vehicle acquisition evidence;
   
7. anything showing the attempted registration change in the app;
   
8. photographs of the entrance sign and main contractual signs; and
   
9. confirmation of whether the driver has ever been identified.
   

Once those are available, the position can be assessed properly rather than trying to reverse-engineer seven £100 charges from a summary.

One further point worth noting: the current PPSCoP also requires operators to consider appeals submitted outside the normal 28-day period where the appellant supplies evidence of exceptional circumstances explaining the delay. Whether their stated "personal constraints" meet that threshold depends entirely on what those circumstances actually were, so I would not use it yet without knowing more.