IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Carflow Parking Appeal

Very interesting to have received the following appeal evidence from this lot. I would appreciate some comments from people on here as they have a few bloopers in it i think.

I will post up separately the Agent Statement that they have attached being the 'evidence ' of their contract and authority to enforce. They have refused to show an unredacted copy (or any copy whatsoever!) and instead are sending a statement from the land agent as evidence. I see that they have dated this from AFTER the so called parking offence took place - is that grounds for a POPLA win I wonder?

On the parking signage issue they dont provide an address of the legal entity and nor for ANPR Data privacy etc do they show EXACTLY what the data will be used for. Again i think recent POPLA win will help here - anyone got the details of that win at POPLA and the 'case number'?

ANPR reliability - anything here again at POPLA can refer to where we have won on ground of not proven reliability?

I have lined uip a furtehr 4 people in the village after this one to all come in with POPLA appeals so its worth aking sure we nail them on this one as an opener and then try and get the others across the line on the same basis

Couipon Mad - also in the NTK they specifically have a sentence stating that any appeal to POPLA MUST be on the same ground as the appeal to them and that any other basis of appeal 'is not allowed'. Is that a breach of BPACode of practice?

Thanks in advance for all your assistance.





POPLA Appeal – Case Summary
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

Carflow Limited operates a parking enforcement scheme for the landowners at St. Peters
Court, Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, SL9 9QQ. The site consists of the main surface car park
within St Peters Court Shopping Centre in Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire SL9 9QQ. The
main site has c. 65 spaces with a single two-lane entrance / exit accessed from the High
Street to the North of the site. The main site includes the two spaces to the east of the
entrance outside NatWest. The main car park is monitored by Carflow's ANPR system. The
service area is monitored by Carflow's Self-Ticketing system. The service area entrance is
located at the south west of the site, accessed via the High Street opposite the White Hart
pub. The service area consists of a narrow lane that leads to the barriered residential parking
area. Permit holder parking takes place along the service area lane.

Carflow Limited has been engaged to prevent overstaying the 60 minutes maximum stay
permitted in this car park. In the past many vehicles have parked for longer than 60 minutes,
to the detriment of most users of the car park leading to a very busy car park and great
difficulty in finding spaces. St. Peter’s Court is private land and parking longer than 60
minutes is not permitted. The appellant parked in this private car park and stayed longer than
the 60 minutes maximum allowed stay time.

1. Lack of proprietary interest in the land and no authority to levy charges
The appellant has questioned Carflow’s authority to enforce on the land in question. Carflow
refused to provide any evidence in relation the appellant’s request for an unredacted copy of
our contract with the landowner in their initial appeal. We explained that we had provided
evidence of our authority to enforce to the DVLA and they were happy with the information
provided. To supply this to the appellant would be a breach of Data Protection legislation. We
have included our landowner agreement for this site in the site appendix detailing Carflow’s
authority to:
undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the site;
issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not
permitted under the terms and conditions of parking;
pursue the outstanding parking charges by any method up to and including by way of
legal proceedings to recover charges due from drivers charged for unauthorised
parking, in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Code
of Practice.
Please note that although the Agent Declaration is dated 18-Mar-16, it states that we have a
contract in place that allows us authority to enforce on the land from 01-Jan-2016 to 31-Dec-
2020.


2. ANPR Usage and Incorrect Signage
The appellant has questioned whether our signage complies with the requirements of the
British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and the Data Protection Act. Our
organisation and signs are fully compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of
Practice and the Data Protection Act in relation to the points raised:
1. Our entrance sign carries the CCTV symbol and directs motorists to the signs
within the car park for details.
2. Our rules signs carry a CCTV symbol to inform people that CCTV is being used
and states that "ANPR and / or vehicle photography is in operation".
3. Our rules signs state that “If the motorist fails to comply with the terms and
conditions, they accept that they are liable to pay a Parking Charge and vehicle
keeper details may be requested from the DVLA”. Therefore, we have informed the
motorist what the data captured by the ANPR cameras will be used for.
Carflow POPLA Appeal Number: 0830646002 VRN : DG14XAY
2
4. The BPA have examined our signage at this site and have found them to be
conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language. As can be seen from
the evidence in the site appendix, our signs are easy to see, read and understand.
5. Our signs advise motorists that there is a maximum stay of 60 minutes in the car
park. Our signs also state that “If the motorist fails to comply with the terms and
conditions, they accept that they are liable to pay a Parking Charge and vehicle
keeper details may be requested from the DVLA”. This makes it clear to motorists
that if they have stayed in the car park more than 60 minutes after they have
arrived, they are liable to receive a parking charge. We do not feel that it is
necessary to explicitly state that parking time begins immediately upon entry as we
have already stated that there is a “maximum stay time of 60 minutes”, as distinct
from a “maximum parking time of 60 minutes”.
6. We have included copies of our signs and photos of the signs in situ in our site
appendix.

3. No Planning Permission
We have no record of the appellant mentioning planning permission before appealing to
POPLA. This was not part of their initial appeal to Carflow and therefore we feel it is wrong
and unfair to suggest that we have failed to respond to this point. Please see our
correspondence with the appellant in the appellant appendix.
Our signs fall under “CLASSES OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR WHICH DEEMED CONSENT IS
GRANTED” under The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England)
Regulations 2007.
Our signs fall within these conditions and therefore deemed consent is considered granted
and we do not have to explicitly seek planning permission from the District Council.

4. Refusal to supply evidence of ANPR reliability
Carflow constantly check and monitor our ANPR cameras to ensure that they are operating
correctly. In addition to these regular checks all ANPR photos go through a rigorous manual
checking process before any parking charges are sent. This ensures that a human has
double checked all the information before any parking charge is issued.
We comply fully with paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice.
We keep the ANPR equipment we use in our car parks in good working order. We make sure
the data we are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The
processes that we use to manage our ANPR system may be audited by the BPA's
compliance team or their agents.
We are unfamiliar with the case the appellant mentions involving one of our competitors,
ParkingEye (we could find no record of the details of the case on the internet). We have no
idea what methods ParkingEye use to calibrate their timestamps and therefore cannot
compare them with ours. However, we are satisfied that our software is robust and accurate.
Rebutal of Apellant’s idea of how Carflow’s ANPR system functions.
The appellant seems to think that our ANPR system applies timestamps separately from the
photos being taken. Timestamps are added to the photos locally (not applied by a remote
server and “disconnected by the internet” as the appellant has suggested). For commercial
sensitivity reasons (Carflow have invested vast sums in our ANPR technology) we will not
give any further detail, suffice to say that in compliance with the Code of Practice paragraph
21.3 we are happy that processes we use to manage our ANPR system may be audited by
the BPA’s compliance team or their agents.

5. No Contract formed

The appellant has incorrectly claimed that Carflow are required to provide an address in order
for a contract to be formed. Carflow have included our company number on our signs, which
clearly identifies the legal entity with which any contract is formed.
Conclusion
The simple fact of this case is that the appellant’s vehicle stayed longer than the permitted 60
minutes maximum stay. The appellant’s vehicle remained in St. Peters Court for 1 hour and
26 minutes, well in excess of the allowed time and was therefore issued with a parking
charge.
The signs in this private car park clearly state that there is a maximum stay of 60 minutes
only. As the appellant stayed longer than the permitted 60 minutes we feel that this appeal
should be refused.

Kind Regards,



Carflow Appeals Team
«13

Comments

  • pappa_golf
    pappa_golf Posts: 8,895
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    you can write "merry xmas" I owe you scammers nothing! on your appeal to them , if they do not agree that you should be "merry" at xmas and cancel the ticket they MUST send you a POPLa code


    by the time you are ready to submit to POPLa , you will have gathered more info (research) and can include it in your submission




    Couipon Mad - also in the NTK they specifically have a sentence stating that any appeal to POPLA MUST be on the same ground as the appeal to them and that any other basis of appeal 'is not allowed'




    it will be the same


    a longer version of I DO NOT OWE YOU SCAMMERS MONEY , as per one to PPC , but longer
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • Just to be clear . POPLA Apeeal has been submitted and THIS above is the Evidence pack BACK from the ie i Have 7 days to respond and want to where possible. Meantime chaps read below which is the Agent Statement they are enclosing INSTEAD of showing any Contract Doc

    On behalf of Goodman Mann Broorntital, I can confirm that
    1. The site is St Peters Court. Chalfont St Peter. Buckinghamshire. SL9 900. The site consists of the main surface car park within St Peters Court Shopping Centre in Chalfont St Peter. Buckinghamshire. The main site has c. 65 spaces with a single two-lane entrance / exit accessed from the High Street to the North of the site. The main site includes the two spaces to the east of the entrance outside NatWest. The main car park will be monitored by Carllow's ANPR system. The service area will be monitored by Carflows Self-Ticketing system. The service area entrance is located at the south west of the site, accessed via the High Street opposite the White Hart pub. The service area consists of a narrow lane that leads to the bartered residential parking area. Permit holder parking takes place along the service area lane.
    2. The Landowner Is London 8 District Investments. The Copper Room. DEVA Centre. Trinity Way, Manchester M3 78G, who Is the owner of the site.
    3. Goodman Mann Broomhaa is the duty authorised agent, acting on behalf of London & District Investments in this regard.
    4 The Operator is Carlow Limited.
    5. The Operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management. control and enforcement at the site.
    6. This authonty is contained in an agreement dated 22" December 2015 running from January 2016 to 31 December 2020, subject to early termination rights set out in the contract Terms 8 Conditions.
    7. The Operator is authorised by the landowner to Issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.
    8. The terms and conditions are as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable. with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
    9. The issuing of parking charge notices is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions. as also clearly set out on signage at the site and. where applicable. with any permit or dispensation to use at the site.
    10. The Operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of the terms and conditions as referred to above.
    11. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charges by any method up to and including by way of legal proceedings to recover charges due from drivers charged for unauthorised parking, in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Code of Practice.
    I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 5 April 2016 at 3:51PM
    I suspect the OP has done all of the above and is at the rebuttal stage, but he has not made that clear from the outset

    as for popla appeals, he can find those POPLA DECISIONS by looking backwards in the relevant sticky thread , plus he could try a pm to those people that posted those decisions if the info he requires is not there , especially if he clicks on their name, finds the thread and if the info isnt there either

    so I think some simple digging would help him somewhat

    a rebuttal of the fact that a land agent statement is not sufficient and that popla should see the actual landowner contract should be included

    he also has previous threads http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5425397 so I dont know why he has started another one
  • System
    System Posts: 178,077
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Community Admin
    I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner

    Love that one. Get them to produce it. It's a sort of self-justification.
  • Redx..... i have searched at length and its not simple to always extract the exact POPLA case that one needs. In many cases the assessor or case number is deleted as you know. Needless to say it is MUCH more efficient to have the 100's of people on here to just read this post and then if anyone knows the POPLA case in question then they can update us all and remind me of it.

    Hardly rocket science old chap. any helpful comments you have are gratefully received as I have 4 others in the wings here all at the same car park waiting to submit POPLA so its worth getting this one as spot on as we can

    Thanks
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 5 April 2016 at 4:51PM
    and if anyone does know those details they may reply, but its also not "rocket science" to click on the last page of the POPLA DECISIONS thread old chap and to go from back to front looking at the cases contained on there, then doing the detective work between you and the 4 others in your village ;)

    then you can pm the people who posted because its rare for a popla reference to be included in those copy and paste replies

    ie:- if you want that info, put the work in to find it, old chap ;)

    you forget that we regulars are volunteers here and dont do other peoples bidding so they can sit back and watch corrie :)

    as for the use of anpr data missing on signage, yes you will find it

    but as for anpr accuracy, no , not seen one

    landowner authority - yes have seen those too

    have also seen where contracts were not dated as in force on the day of the incident, or had expired , or both
  • Redx... not interested in your minutae... will await feedback from others more helpful than yrself... i put hours in here too helping people including extricating more than 500 people from Chiltern Railway tickets. Read the thread if you dont know ..)

    Apologies to the rest of you who had to read this silly exchange !! hopefully thats the end of Redx on here.

    Coupon - see my comments re the sentence you asked about before in them stating that NO Appeal is possible to POPLA unless on the same basis as the initial appeal to Carflow... does that breach BPA CoP in your view ?

    Thanks all
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    its your loss but I can only see that you are being lazy and expecting others to do the work for you, plus you started a new thread which wasnt required and also you did not mention this was at rebuttal stage, confusing others, not exactly minutae

    its your loss, I will now add you to my IGNORE list , OLD CHAP !

    its still not rocket science !
  • jeepers....
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,634
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 5 April 2016 at 5:39PM
    For all those who do not know - because he doesn't post here all the time - prjohnsonnn10 is a legend and is not a lazy poster!

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/met-parking-deceive-motorists-for-years.html

    Let's save any criticism for those aggressive idiots who have more argument in them than sense (not posters on this thread).

    prjohnsonnn10, I could not find a POPLA number for the few cases we've had which have won on 'what the ANPR system will be used for'. Yesterday I mentioned one here but did not have the POPLA code:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70442589#post70442589

    All I have there is that the Assessor was Lauren Bailey in early Feb. As you can see from that thread, POPLA are not being consistent with decisions though.

    What do the signs look like and how conspicuous is the £100 charge - in large lettering like in the Beavis case? I see the PPC has said this but it doesn't mention the £ sum which is vital to any contract. So are the words on the sign this vague, with the £100 in tiny print?
    Our signs advise motorists that there is a maximum stay of 60 minutes in the car
    park. Our signs also state that “If the motorist fails to comply with the terms and
    conditions, they accept that they are liable to pay a Parking Charge and vehicle
    keeper details may be requested from the DVLA”.

    So the signs may be key. The way POPLA are going it's a lottery right now and you may lose.

    I would concentrate on pointing out in the comments if the signage pictures do not show that a driver could read the £100 from a driver's seat, and then picking out their sentences one by one and saying something like - ''This is hearsay - no evidence supplied by the operator to disprove my assertion. Saying I am wrong but providing no evidence, does not swing the balance of probability in their favour''.

    Do not try to write a really long reiteration of your appeal and you can't add new stuff becuase POPLA completely ignore it 'because the operator does not get to see the comments'. So I think comments need to be VERY specific to sentences from the evidence and the signage pics and the lack of proof of authority flowing from the actual site landowner.

    Don't bust a gut. So many are being lost now.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards