UKPC 5mins overstay

bod1467

So because of the PPC's incompetence the OP has lost 10+ days of the POPLA appeal window?

rayhool

Has anyone had chance to look at my POPLA appeal, is it ok to submit?

Redx

rayhool wrote: »

Has anyone had chance to look at my POPLA appeal, is it ok to submit?

seems ok to me apart from you have not bullet pointed and numbered each point , so I believe it should flow more like this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

numbered bullet points first , followed by numbered explanations expanding each one-liner bullet point and where the numbering easily lets the assessor locate what they need, and a quick glance tells them what its all about and where to look

double check the section on not a gpeol , no contract , and signage, as they are the 3 main points for popla

Coupon-mad

It looks fine but 'no pre-estimate of loss' should be point #1 and any BPA code breaches should be last (as you won't actually win on those!)

and I would add an extra paragraph into the 'landowner contract' point (which should be point #2):

''
I require proof form the (unredacted) contract, or user manual/service agreement, that there is a '5 minute grace period agreed with the client'. Seeing as it seems the allegation here is a mere 5 minutes 37 seconds over, I will need to see the exact wording of that grace point agreement because if it is written in whole minutes (not accounting for seconds) then the driver was not outside the stated 'grace period' until SIX minutes had passed. In addition, I require the documentary evidence from UKPC to show who that agreement/contract is with. I have reason to doubt that their contract is with the actual landowner, and as such, a witness statement by another third party like a Managing Agent or retail store (i.e. a client not confirmed to actually be the landowner) will not suffice.
''


And I would replace this:

''NO EVIDENCE OF PARKING TIME
UKPC 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.''

with this instead (which should be point #3):
''
ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
Because this Operator is actually trying to allege a 37 SECOND overstay (above the alleged five minute 'Grace Period') I call into question the ANPR system accuracy. The time of 37 seconds, shown as a percentage of the 2 hours five minutes that would have been allowed, is so minuscule that it would require an ANPR system with almost perfect manufacturer-stated accuracy. 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.

So I require the Operator to present records which prove:

- how they can rebut my statement above (i.e. show how the system works so that there is no possibility of any timing error, inaccuracy or buffering delay).

- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the timing/time stamp relating to the exact ANPR system used here. I require the actual ANPR system manual or marketing 'user information' from the Manufacturer (not UKPC's own interpretation of accuracy).

- 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 maintenance and checking of ANPR systems, with documentary evidence being kept for inspection, is a BPA CoP requirement so the latest record must be available to show to POPLA. Without it the reliability of the system is still in question.

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 UKPC are expecting me to believe their system has a zero time-stamp inaccuracy rate and zero buffering delay.

UKPC 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.

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.

Stroma

rayhool wrote: »

Yes I was just 5 mins 37 sec over!

Yes I now have my POPLA code so I will do my appeal tonight and post on here for checking.

If I hadn't complained to the BPA I would have never have received my POPLA code, I have checked and the code was generated on Jan 9th the date UKPC claim to have sent the letter, but why did they have to send this separate of the appeal reject letter?? Shall I include this in my POPLA appeal?

It is utterly pathetic, you don't go over until it hit 6 minutes. The bpa says a common sense approach to enforcement should be used (their words), how can this be common sense? Anyway add what coupon has posted above

rayhool

POPLA appeal won, UKPC didn't submit evidence.

Many many thanks to all contributors to this thread who advised and guided me. Special thanks to Red-X and Coupon Mad.:j

Redx

excellent m8 "

please add a redacted copy and details to the POPLA DECISIONS thread , link is in the crabman sticky thread