Staples parking ticket.

Redx

stelladog wrote: »

Hi all, we received a parking ticket from VCS parking last year for parking outside a bay late at night at berkeley precinct sheffield where you dont need a parking ticket, in a half empty carpark in the dark, ignored all letters and now are receiving letters and phone calls from rossendale collection agency advice please they are saying debt collectors are coming round in seven days to seize goods etc

the best advice we can give you is to press the blue NEW THREAD button at the top left of the forum (near the green banners) and start your own topic instead of hijacking somebody elses thread which is disrespectful as they want their answers same as you do, but maybe not yours

thank you

Brit27

Redx wrote: »

ok, thanks, quite a few spelling mistakes so I would address those and also see if anyone else on here wishes anything to be added to removed, in subsequent replies

I'll check back through for those mistakes and hang on for a bit more feedback before sending.

Brit27

I could only spot a couple of spelling mistakes ?

Coupon-mad

I didn't spot any others but then I didn't pore over every single word! Some of your headings are in capitals and others are not though so that needs to be consistent.


I think you should add a bit to the signage paragraph that it was dark, so G24 must show evidence of the signs as they appear in the dark. As they are around 8' high up on poles and non-reflective, any signs were not lit by the - significantly lower - car headlamps and were not seen by the driver at all.

I would just check, is it certain that G24 don't name the creditor in the NTK letters by now (that was a fairly old template POPLA appeal you used). I am thinking maybe by now they might have added 'the creditor' or 'G24 as creditor' somewhere in the Notice - so double check.

And I would make the ANPR thing a point on its own, so get rid of it here where this is pretty old wording:


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - (part 21) ANPR
G24 Ltd have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR). I require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code.


And instead add a section like this:



ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
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 and generally maintained in accordance with the operator's handbook. I question the accuracy of the times shown on the two 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. G24 Ltd must produce evidence to explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system wholly responsible for the court loss by ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. 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 believe the G24 Ltd system has the same fundamental flaws.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require G24 Ltd to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, one local camera took the 'entrance' 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. And then a different camera took the 'exit' photo with the same potential for timer fault or delay. 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 images are ever time-stamped accurately - nor is there evidence that the entrance camera is in synch with the exit camera. 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, I contend that the ANPR system 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 - if there are any such signs they are certainly not lit or reflective and cannot be seen in the dark (which is when the parking event occurred). 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. The BPA Code of Practice is not just a matter of guidelines. Strict compliance with the relevant ATA code is fundamental and in the case of the ANPR system, a failure to comply can also mean 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 on all counts of paragraph 21.

Brit27

Thanks C-m that's seems to add a lot of attention to detail, I'll go over it all again tomorrow and will check and amend the creditor section as needs be.
I will post once again before sending it off.

Coupon-mad

It's to make G24 have to jump through hoops!!

Brit27

:j Applause deserved for that :T

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's to make G24 have to jump through hoops!!

Brit27

POPLA code :

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appeal summarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded the appropriate amount.

1. Unclear and non-compliant signage.
2. Contract with landowner.
3. No evidence of parking time.
4. APNR Accuracy and Compliance.
5. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.
6. Unlawful penalty charge.
7. Buisness rates.


1.Unclear and non-compliant signage.

Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms G24 Ltd are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements . I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, and clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).

2. Contract with landowner

Not compliant with the BPA code of practice and no legal status to offer parking or enforce tickets.
G24 Ltd do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.
In their Notices and in the rejection letter, G24 Ltd has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whether G24 Ltd have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

3. No evidence of parking time.

G24 Ltd are relying on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit the Operator is relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.

4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance.

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 and generally maintained in accordance with the operator's handbook. I question the accuracy of the times shown on the two 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. G24 Ltd must produce evidence to explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system wholly responsible for the court loss by ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. 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 believe the G24 Ltd system has the same fundamental flaws.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require G24 Ltd to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, one local camera took the 'entrance' 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. And then a different camera took the 'exit' photo with the same potential for timer fault or delay. 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 images are ever time-stamped accurately - nor is there evidence that the entrance camera is in synch with the exit camera. 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, I contend that the ANPR system 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 - if there are any such signs they are certainly not lit or reflective and cannot be seen in the dark (which is when the parking event occurred). 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. The BPA Code of Practice is not just a matter of guidelines. Strict compliance with the relevant ATA code is fundamental and in the case of the ANPR system, a failure to comply can also mean 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 on all counts of paragraph 21.


5. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

G24 Ltd are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.
Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then G24 Ltd cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can G24 Ltd lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. In this case the premises ‘Staples’ was closed and had been for more than an hour.

6. Unlawful penalty charge.

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).
This transparently punitive charge by G24 Ltd is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law.

7. Business rates.

As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by G24 Ltd, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for G24Ltd, I do not believe that G24 Ltd has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.
I put G24 to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operator at Staples, 12/14 Medway Street, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4HA car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

Yours Faithfully,


Hopefully all is covered now in the above.

BrightonandHove

To me your appeal looks good BUT I'm really not sure how point 7 helps. Whether they pay their taxes is irrelevant to this type of appeal although I'll admit it has a moral and legal stance outside the appeal.

bod1467

I agree. For a POPLA appeal you can drop point 7. (It doesn't hurt to leave it in, just that the assessor will ignore it and will allow your appeal on 2 or 5 depending on their mood).