Popla appeal UKPC camera

Sky14

Hello

My daughter was caught on camera having waited for 20 mins on a Sunday in a loading area behind shops while her boyfriend picked up a pizza. I read your newbie thread and sent off an initial letter and then received another letter saying they hadn't heard anything and had also sent a reminder so now they were upping the fine to £140 and would send in debt collectors if there was no payment. I replied, warning them re sending threatening letters and informing them they were wrong on 2 points. 1. That I did reply (and I had proof of posting) - I sent a copy of my initial letter. 2. That no reminder had never been received. I have now received a letter rejecting my letter and sending a Popla number.

I have been reading and reading here and trying to find an example of a Popla appeal for these circumstances. After hours I am worn down and so confused. This is such a good site with so much info it has beaten me! I found your links to pro forma Popla letters re UKCP. There was one for disabled drivers but I couldn't find one to cover this?

I have seen members here being admonished for not working hard enough to find stuff here and am anxious I too will be told I have done it wrong but I would just like some advice as to how to word my appeal without adding a load of stuff that doesn't apply? Any links would be greatly appreciated. My daughter is very ill at the moment and I am trying to help but have limited time. I am feeling incredibly stressed about it all.

I wanted to find time to go to the place myself and have a look but it is miles away. My daughter didn't even notice the signs. A worker at the shopping centre told me that it is free to park there for 15 mins so it appears the charge (originally £60 and now raised to £140) is for 5 mins!!

Thank you for reading

Sky

Redx

best bet is stick to a standard appeal and forget about "what happened" as its rarely relevant

use somewhere between 3 and 7 appeal points including not a gpeol , no contract and bad signage

also search the forum using the word ukpc , find a similar popla appeal that has been recently checked and submitted , then adapt it

post it back on here from notepad if you need it checking

edit , have a look at this and adapt it for starters https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4891650

or this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4919594

posts #19 and #26 amendments

Sky14

Thank you for your reply.


Here is my draft appeal. I would appreciate if you could look over it to see if I have added too much or missed anything out.


Many thanks.




"APPEAL RE: UKPC CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2014, VEHICLE REG: **** ***

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.


2. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

3. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.


4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.



Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

The demand for a payment of £60 rising to £140 because UKPC decided I had not replied to the initial charge notice (I did reply), and also a reminder which was never received, is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could possibly have been suffered by the Landowner or the Operator. A UKPC sign states that a PCN would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking, which indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. UKPC has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge.

I put UKPC to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date UKPC did not provide me with a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business, for example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, wages, uniforms, signage, office costs) would still have been the same.

The Department for Transport guidelines state that: "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges: ''The OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.” The BPA Code of Practice states: “19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.“



2. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.


Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions/cameras and chargeable regime in this parking area.


3. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company


4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the operator is relying upon were too small to see, read or understand.

I require that the Operator's provides documentary evidence and signage map/photos on this point, lighting at night, colours used in cases of driver colour blindness and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach.


As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

This concludes my appeal.

Redx

seems ok to me , I would wait for other comments however before submission

Sky14

Thank you. I will wait to see what others think.

ColliesCarer

I agree with Redx that it's looking good.

Only comment I have is that as this sounds like ANPR cameras were involved you could also add a fifth point on ANPR compliance and accuracy but it wouldn't be essential that you do as you have the main winning points there - it just creates more work for them in their response and the more onerous you make it the more chance they either won't bother to respond or will mess up when they do.

Sky14

Thank you.

Is this what you mean regarding the cameras:

LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNING PERMISSION

It as been known that some parking companies to not have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the installation of ANPR cameras. I put The Operator to strict proof to provide evidence that they have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities to operate this car park and for the installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on this site.


And also shall I include this?


7. ANPR AND DATA PROTECTION ACT COMPLIANCE

The Operator are obliged to make sure their ANPR equipment is in working order and comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21. 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.

I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) is also compliant with legal and BPA requirements and request that they demonstrate adherence.


Thanks

ColliesCarer

More the point you have numbered 7/ - you have the planning consent already covered in point 2.
In the quotes box is a strong point about about ANPR written by Coupon-mad which I've edited to refer to UKPC as the operator. See what you think

5) 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 UKPC 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 UKPC 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 UKPC 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.

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 UKPC to strict proof to the contrary.

Sky14

Thanks ColliesCarer, I love that one! - didn't manage to find that on my search!

I will add that and sent by post to Popla and get proof of posting.

I really appreciate your help.

I will let you know the result of my appeal.

Sky14

Hello
Just to let you know that I sent this off and received an e mail from POPLA saying they were sending my appeal to UKPC. I never heard another thing!
Thank you for the invaluable help and information I received on this forum.
Regards
Sky

hoohoo

Yours may be one of the cases stayed until Beavis. Normally you should always receive a judgment. It may be worth checking with the BPA and asking if your case is closed or if it is being heard later, and stating you have not received an evidence pack if it is being heard.