Suggested POPLA appeal template - core points.

Coupon-mad

I just tried to create a stronger ANPR paragraph than we have previously had, by attempting to include PE v Fox-Jones (8/11/13) although I could do with the case number and court details. Here's the pepipoo thread where I have just tried to add such a paragraph in the OP's POPLA appeal:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84518&st=0&p=891869&#entry891869



ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
Because this Operator is actually trying to allege a xx minute overstay (above the alleged xx minute 'Grace Period') I call into question the ANPR system accuracy. The time of xx minutes, shown as a percentage of the xx hours (and xx minutes grace period) that would have been allowed, is so minuscule that it would require an ANPR system with almost perfect manufacturer-stated accuracy.

So I require the Operator to present records which prove:


- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.


- the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.


This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times and this Operator is are expecting me to believe their system has a zero failure rate and zero buffering delay.


The Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live".


Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped accurately. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

4consumerrights

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I just tried to create a stronger ANPR paragraph than we have previously had, by attempting to include PE v Fox-Jones (8/11/13) although I could do with the case number and court details. Here's the pepipoo thread where I have just tried to add such a paragraph in the OP's POPLA appeal:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84518&st=0&p=891869&#entry891869

ANPR Accuracy
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.




Feel free to improve it as I don't fully understand the defence that won! :rotfl:

IMO - CM You've worded in very well! If a CCTV system does not have an internal timing facility and takes a "Still" photograph - there is obviously going to be a time discrepancy if this photograph then goes through a computer system to get date/time stamped. There is also no way of knowing the speed of this process, the queuing time for this process to happen, or if indeed the computer stalled or malfunctioned at any time or indeed if the time on the computer is correctly set.

(This is rather like (though in reverse) uploading photographs from a camera to laptop for instance - the date and time relies on the camera's settings being accurate)

If Parking Eye and other PPC's really do not have the ANPR capability of date and time stamping at points of entry/exit at car parks and rely of images being stamped via computer later, then this really opens up a can of worms (which should certainly be included in all impending court cases as well) IMO this leads open the way for either mistakes or deliberate abuse and fraud in stamping photographs and this system is certainly not industry compliant. This raises the legal question of whether RK details are lawfully obtained in these instances.

Sorry can't find case number you want - but hope explanation helps a little:)

fisherjim

The practice of charging using so called ANPR cameras has bugged me for some time.
If you buy something that has to be weighed or measured eg alcohol, petrol, meat etc., the device that measures or weighs has to be approved and regularly checked by trading standards for conformity.
How do these scamming PPC's get away with just setting up a camera and any old back office equipment and procedures and charge for time on site with no independent verification?

Coupon-mad

That's true. I think like much of their business model the PPCs rely on fooling people (impersonation of authority, invoice that mimics a parking fine, cameras that they call ANPR so people think they are exactly like the Police version...).

Stroma

How do they get away with it? Simple not enough complain to trading standards, the dvla, and service providers. And it hasn't ever got to a higher court

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's true. I think like much of their business model the PPCs rely on fooling people (impersonation of authority, invoice that mimics a parking fine, cameras that they call ANPR so people think they are exactly like the Police version...).

Stroma wrote: »

How do they get away with it? Simple not enough complain to trading standards, the dvla, and service providers. And it hasn't ever got to a higher court

When their whole business model comes crashing down about their ears when there is a precedent set in a higher court I can foresee that now that there can be little PPI mis-selling left unclaimed that all those ambulance chasing claims companies switching to "Have you paid an illegal private parking charge?". The payouts won't be as big as with PPI but there is plenty of volume. Many of the PPCs will just fold but at least Capita will have deep enough pockets be able to refund all the motorists scammed by PE.

Coupon-mad

As I have this latest very informative 'POPLA template appeal points' thread linked in 'How to win at POPLA' on the info sticky thread for newbies I thought I would add this latest idea for a paragraph about 'no stopping zones' such as Airports:


Misleading and missing clearway signage - no contract with driver formed
The contravention says 'parked on a clearway/no stopping zone' which is a misleading term because a Local Authority term 'urban clearway' means nothing on private land. If VCS {or other Operator!} intended this apparently private road to mimic an urban clearway as a no-stopping zone, they must make that obvious to drivers with accepted (e.g. Red Route or Clearway) lines & signs - which were {completely omitted} or {not repeated}.

I have now been to this site and can see that this Operator used standard signs: unreadable and overly-busy, small-font with blue & yellow colouring (their normal car park version from all appearances). Such signs were sporadically placed and certainly do not communicate 'clearway' to drivers as they do not follow the Dept for Transport rules for such signs (in the Highway code it is a yellow clearway sign with times and a blue circle with red line or cross, repeated regularly and FACING oncoming traffic). It is accepted that on private land the TRSGD2002 does not apply as such, but to completely omit repeaters of universally-understood versions of 'clearway' signs and simply to place their normal signs where drivers in moving traffic cannot read them, means that this operator has failed to inform a driver sufficiently to allege any breach occurred.

The roadway looks to all intents & purposes like public highway (it is certainly not a car park) yet this operator has simply painted yellow lines at intervals, plus they have placed misleading, unsigned laybys which give the appearance of a road where cars certainly can pull over and stop. The signs - such as they are - have been placed on poles, high up at right angles to the road and could only have been seen if a driver actually stopped near one and got out of the car to read it. No driver in moving traffic at this busy site at this time of day, would have understood this flawed signage with a lack of repeaters, to mean 'clearway/no stopping zone'.

The driver pulled over briefly to {pick up/drop off a passenger/unload cases, or whatever} as is expressly permitted on roadway double yellow lines in the Highway Code. The driver had no idea this could possibly be a contravention. The signage is fundamentally flawed and non compliant with the BPA code of practice. No contract was therefore formed with this driver as there was no consideration, offer nor acceptance of terms.

Finally I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line...of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line. It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''

Coupon-mad

Just adding Equality Act wording here so we can find it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63819256#Comment_63819256


BREACH OF THE BPA AND EQUALITY ACT CODES OF PRACTICE AND BREACH OF THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 - INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION
The operator declined to comment or respond to my point that the driver was a disabled driver, {driving a Motability vehicle / displaying a blue badge while parking} and has denied me a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010. The operator knows about the disability issue yet have continued to pursue this charge, so they are in breach (harassment and indirect discrimination caused by a blanket policy).

My view is supported by a compelling court decision recently in Excel Parking Services v Greenwood, case number 3QT60496 4/10/13 where the motorist forgot to display his permit due to his short term memory impairment which was a feature of his long term disability. Despite POPLA unfortunately missing the valid point about his disability and not paying due regard to their own legal duty as a service provider under the Equality Act - as his POPLA appeal was refused - when Excel tried to enforce their charge against Mr Greenwood, they failed. The District Judge found that the parking operator 'should have made a reasonable adjustment' which should simply have resulted in cancelling the charge as soon as they knew that the forgotten permit was caused by the 'protected characteristics' (impaired memory) of the driver.

The Equality Act states that any contractual terms are specifically rendered 'unenforceable' if they have the effect of causing detrimental treatment of a disabled person.
142Unenforceable terms
(1)A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.

A service provider which refuses to make a 'reasonable adjustment' without lawful justification is in breach of their mandatory duties under the following statutory Code:

The EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers (which became law in April 2011):
14.58 Indirect discrimination will be intentional where the defendant (or defender) knew that certain consequences would follow from their actions and they wanted those consequences to follow. A motive, for example, of promoting business efficiency, does not mean that the act of indirect discrimination is unintentional.
5.4 Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
5.34 In a case involving disability if the service provider has not complied with its duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments, it will be difficult for the service provider to show that the treatment was proportionate.

I would remind the POPLA assessor that POPLA is also a 'service provider' to the public and has broadly the same duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the Operator and landowner/occupier client. The Chief Adjudicator will no doubt be familiar with these regulations and I am sure that all employees, including all POPLA Assessors, are trained in this law and know that they must demonstrate compliance when making decisions which affect disabled groups or individuals.

I respectfully suggest that it would be discrimination by POPLA if they do not uphold this appeal, in view of my 'genuine disability/no reasonable adjustment made' easily- remedied situation. The Assessor in this case, having read all the facts, is now acting in the full knowledge of my protected characteristics and knowing there is a complete absence of lawful justification for the refusal to make a 'reasonable adjustment'. POPLA, as a service provider, are aware of the disproportionate consequences that will cause further detriment, harassment and potential monetary loss for me, if you decide I should pay this charge. I hope to hear from POPLA soon that my appeal has been upheld.

Guys_Dad

I have edited my original post to point to additional posts on here, such as post #29, to help newbies whilst keeping the original post manageable.

Thanks for the additional points.

4consumerrights

I would remind the POPLA assessor that POPLA is also a 'service provider' to the public and has the same duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the EA Code of Practice, which the Chief Adjudicator will no doubt be familiar with (employees, including all POPLA assessors, also need to be trained in this law and fully compliant). I contend it would be discrimination by POPLA if you do not uphold this appeal in view of the disability/no reasonable adjustment situation. The Assessor in this case, having read all the facts, is acting in the full knowledge of my disability need, the lack of reasonable adjustment made, and knowing of the consequences that will cause further detriment and harassment for me if you do not cancel this charge.

IMO - This section above MUST be included in all POPLA appeals where a parking charge relates to disability or where a failure to display a blue badge is alleged.

It is a shame POPLA haven't considered their legal obligations under the Equality Act from the start as many of the earlier failures where appeals have been rejected by not displaying blue badge could have been avoided.