Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • prjohnsonnn10
    • By prjohnsonnn10 5th Apr 16, 4:34 PM
    • 87Posts
    • 88Thanks
    prjohnsonnn10
    Carflow Parking Appeal
    • #1
    • 5th Apr 16, 4:34 PM
    Carflow Parking Appeal 5th Apr 16 at 4:34 PM
    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
Page 2
    • prjohnsonnn10
    • By prjohnsonnn10 15th Apr 16, 6:36 PM
    • 87 Posts
    • 88 Thanks
    prjohnsonnn10
    My fault chaps - yes they DID submit a full pack but got it in apparently after this 21 day deadline - which I wasn't aware of until now
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Apr 16, 6:48 PM
    • 10,979 Posts
    • 16,384 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    My fault chaps - yes they DID submit a full pack but got it in apparently after this 21 day deadline - which I wasn't aware of until now
    Originally posted by prjohnsonnn10
    I bet the PPC wasn't either
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 16, 12:07 AM
    • 40,460 Posts
    • 52,359 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    My fault chaps - yes they DID submit a full pack but got it in apparently after this 21 day deadline - which I wasn't aware of until now
    Originally posted by prjohnsonnn10
    That is funny!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • emma_uk23
    • By emma_uk23 17th Oct 16, 10:27 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    emma_uk23
    Carflow PCN
    Hello - I am a newbie and have spent most of my evening, reading with interest, many many posts (my eyes are feeling rather square!). I have learnt a lot but am still unsure as to where I stand with the PCN I have received from Carflow. I ask kindly for your experienced advice (I have read the Newbies post):
    Carflow have issued (in my name) a paring charge notice for overstaying a 60 min max free stay period in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park (by 29 mins).

    I am a breastfeeding mother and the overstay occurred because my 3 month old became upset on getting him back into the car, which resulted in me needing to feed him. I have appealed to Carflow to make them aware of this. They have rejected this and given me a code to appeal to POPLA. However, they have notified me that if I appeal to popla, I lose the opportunity to pay Carflow's discounted fine rate of £60 (rather than £100)... The site is at St Peter's Court car park. What I would like to know is, whether it is worth appealing. Whether breastfeeding my child is solely enough grounds to appeal. Many thanks in advance (and apologies if I have not posted in the correct place).
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Oct 16, 12:16 AM
    • 40,460 Posts
    • 52,359 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hello - I am a newbie and have spent most of my evening, reading with interest, many many posts (my eyes are feeling rather square!). I have learnt a lot but am still unsure as to where I stand with the PCN I have received from Carflow. I ask kindly for your experienced advice (I have read the Newbies post):
    Carflow have issued (in my name) a paring charge notice for overstaying a 60 min max free stay period in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park (by 29 mins).

    I am a breastfeeding mother and the overstay occurred because my 3 month old became upset on getting him back into the car, which resulted in me needing to feed him. I have appealed to Carflow to make them aware of this. They have rejected this and given me a code to appeal to POPLA. However, they have notified me that if I appeal to popla, I lose the opportunity to pay Carflow's discounted fine rate of £60 (rather than £100)... The site is at St Peter's Court car park. What I would like to know is, whether it is worth appealing. Whether breastfeeding my child is solely enough grounds to appeal. Many thanks in advance (and apologies if I have not posted in the correct place).
    Originally posted by emma_uk23
    Breastfeeding is mitigating circumstances which POPLA will NOT consider. Well in their eyes it is!

    Have you given away who the driver was?

    Please tell us in a new thread of your own (not here) and please show us the PCN and signs if you have pics. As a newbie you can't post working links to photos and scans so host them on tinypic or Dropbox and show us a 'broken' URL (charge http to hxxp is the easiest way to show us pics).

    But on your own new thread please, Emma.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

145Posts Today

3,350Users online

Martin's Twitter