Clarification "Date issued to RK, or date post recieved"?

Coupon-mad

Looks fine although I would get rid of planning consent (POPLA don't consider that) and I would say point #8 should be much higher, maybe point #2.

anh1904

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against theparking charge above. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on thegrounds stated below; I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Failure to meet conditions for POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4
3. No contract betweendriver/Inadequate signage
4. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's
5. Unlawful penalty charge
6. ANPR accuracy
7. ANPR usage

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss - The Amount of £75 demanded by G24is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon lossfollowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre. As this is a free car park there can be no losses incurred from onsite parking charges andas the car park was virtually empty, no loss of retail revenue. I request G24 to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costsmust represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate ofloss must add up to the amount demanded of £75.

As in previous cases the parking company has included day to day running costsof the business (for example Wages, Uniforms, Signage erection, Installation ofANPR cameras, Office Costs, Maintenance Costs) these would have occurred hadthere been a breach or not and therefore may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.

Given that G24 charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they wouldfor 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention(whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there hasbeen no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parkingcharge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

2. Failure to meet conditions for POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4 - The Notice to Keeper issued by G24 fails to meet the conditions required for POFA schedule 4 paragraph 4 to apply and they, therefore, have no right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper;

If the Operator wants to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and has notissued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, the Operator's Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). The notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 16th May 2014, and the notice to keeper was received 19 days lateron 4th June 2014. Even if the Notice To Keeper was posted by the operator on the day it is dated (30th May 2014), the earliest it could have been delivered by ordinary post would have been Monday 2nd June, which is on the 17th day.

3. No contract betweendriver/Inadequate signage - Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited thesite in question, and the signage at this car park especially at the entranceis inadequate for numerous reasons.

The signage at entrance of the car park has no lighting and doesn't have a reflective background and this makes it possiblefor drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and G24. I enclose a photograph showing the sign as would be seen by an approaching driver. The entrance sign is also situated on the passenger side of the road on a standard right hand UK car and is situated approximately three lane widths from the left kerb, this makes itdifficult for drivers to see and due to the size of the text, quite impossible to read from inside the car regardless of which side of the road the car park is entered from. The very prominent 'Sale' sign above the parking sign would also be far more likely to attract any driver’s attention. All these reasons make it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signage upon entering.

Under Appendix B Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'Signsshould be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place atthose times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by directlighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself isnot directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of aretro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described inthe Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.'

As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearlyenough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at thetime 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 Assessor 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.

4. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's - G24 do notown this car park and are merely agents of the landowner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters G24 have provided me with no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put G24 to strict proof to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand G24 produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the G24.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parkingmanagement, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

5. Unlawful penalty charge - Since there is no demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawfulc harge to impersonate a parking ticket. G24 could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, yet they choose to word it as a 'Charge Notice'in an attempt for it to be deemed as an official parking fine such as the ones issued by Police and local authorities.

6. ANPR accuracy - Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking companies to make sure ANPR equipment is maintained and incorrect working order. I require G24 to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised withthe timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.This is important as the parking charge issued is founded entirety on 2 photos of my vehicle entering the car park and leaving the car park at specific times.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require G24 to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of myvehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remoteserver added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and donot have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proofthat 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 anaccurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from thecameras in this car park is unreliable and unsynchronised. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put G24 to strict proof to the contrary.

7. ANPR usage - Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practiceit states 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforceparking 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'

G24 fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparentmanner'. As G24 place signs too small to be read on arrival, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured byANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at theentrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.


This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld andthe charge be dismissed if G24 Ltd. fail to address and provide the necessaryevidence as requested in the points highlighted above.


Yours Faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Yep go for it!

anh1904

UPDATE: Letter from parking company that case dropped and no need for any further action on my part.

Didn't see the POPLA decision, so likely it went to my junk mail and then deleted.