Help. Highview NTK - need advice

driverj

Thanks Coupon Mad.


Here are the rest of my argument points, I found similar arguments from other threads which directly comply with my case:

3. No Landowner contract and insufficient interest in land.


-no contract
There is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore Highview Parking Ltd has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produces a copy of their contract with the landowner, which must be BPA Code of Practice compliant. This means specifically, that the contract must be dated before this parking event and show that Highview Parking Ltd are granted rights to form contracts with drivers on site and to pursue their charges in the courts in their own name.

-Insufficient interest in land
For the theoretical case that a contract could be deemed to have been established, and all the disputed terms to be validly incorporated, it is challenged that Highview Parking Ltd has sufficient interest in the land concerned to offer any contracts for parking in the first place. Highview Parking Ltd will have to provide a full copy of their contract with the landowner, or provide proof that they are the landowner, of the land in question; otherwise their capacity will be insufficient to even provide an offer for parking.



4. Trespass

If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty of a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this was the case, the driver would be liable to damages. Given that they did no damage to the car park and furthermore that the car park was not full when they parked or left and the parking spaces were ‘free’ to use, It is suggested that there was therefore no
loss at all.

5. Non-Compliant Signage
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signage displayed by Highview Parking Ltd is not compliant with the BPA code of practice in regards to positioning, clarity of terms and conditions, and lack of clear signs at the entrance where the driver had parked due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print. In addition the alleged parking contravention occurred during nightfall and the signage was unlit. Without clear, compliant signs there is no contract and no breach of that alleged contract either.

6. ANPR Accuracy - Coupon Mads suggestion.
Highview Parking Ltd is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. I require Highview Parking Ltd 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 Highview Parking Ltd 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.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Highview Parking Ltd to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of the above 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. Highview Parking Ltd 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 Highview Parking Ltd in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put Highview Parking Ltd to strict proof to the contrary.


I will make sure all NTK's and photos of the signage are included and referenced correctly in my POPLA appeal. I hope in addition to my GPEOL argument, the above points are worded correctly.

Thanks for everyone's help so far. Special thanks to Coupon-Mad

driverj

Hi guys, I will be sending the POPLA appeal today. I was just wondering if anyone could do a quick check of the other points in my appeal, and if everything is fine.

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Everything looks good to win it.