Popla Appeal - advice please

DaveU

I have put together the following appeal to POPLA following a standard soft appeal to ParkingEye, POPLA code received (2 weeks left to submit).

Has anyone had any experience of the ANPR photos not being the right date. My friend is adamant that she had not been to the carpark on the day in question, she has receipts for shopping on the day the pcn was issued, unfortunately we can't find evidence to show she was elsewhere on the day in question. Fighting on standard grounds but this does seem like a new low if it is true.

Any advice gratefully received. Thank You.


I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg ****** and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.

1) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner.
In the appeal ParkingEye did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs ParkingEye has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

2) Proprietary Interest
As the registered keeper, I do not believe that ParkingEye has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give ParkingEye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, ParkingEye's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

3) The Signage does not comply with BPA requlations specifically regarding the data policy regarding ANPR technology used in this car park.

4) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
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 say that ParkingEye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye 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 and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because 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 ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. 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 the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

REGISTERED KEEPER

Hot_Bring

It's a winner but worth adding a summary list - i.e. :

"I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds :

1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
2. Parking Eye have no proprietry interest in the land
etc etc

And then go into the full details you have posted. The assessor will then just pick the winning issue ( number one in your case ). You're helping them do their job in your favour !

Coupon-mad

That will win and PE won't bother to even send any evidence to refute it.