Corporate Services Hereford

JamersPad

My mistake, okay lets try again, do you think this would be okay?

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
6. ANPR usage
7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
8. Business rates

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days demanded by Corporate Services (Parking Management) is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs, which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. In its reply to my initial letter requesting a breakdown of how supposed damages of £100 have arisen, Corporate Services (Parking Management) has claimed the following as proof of its alleged ‘losses’ on which the charge is based:

- Wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions
- IT systems, software, licenses and peripherals
- DVLA fees and processing costs
- Costs in preparing and sending PCNs – stationery, postage and printing
- Legal, Accounting and other Professional costs
- Human Resources
- Premises Costs
- Vehicle and Telephone costs
- Loss of Pay and Display Ticket revenue generating from paying customers (where applicable)
- Loss of purchase revenue to Retail Outlets within the car park

Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite my requesting them to do so. As Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.

Given that Corporate Services (Parking Management) charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty.

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question, and I believe the signage at this car park is inadequate for the following reasons.

There is no sign on the entrance and I had to drive back the following day in order to look for them, there are only 3 other signs in this particular car park but 2 of these were not visible from where my vehicle was parked, from where my vehicle was parked only one sign on the opposite brick wall would of been visible, In addition, the wording is so small that it would not be reasonable to assume anyone entering the car park has a chance to read and accept any terms and conditions of parking stated on the signage whilst driving in a safe and responsible manner. It is therefore entirely possible, even expected, that drivers would enter the car park without seeing this sign. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

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”. Corporate Services (Parking Management) must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

4. Unlawful penalty charge
Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Corporate Services (Parking Management) could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.

5. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Corporate Services (Parking Management) to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that Corporate Services (Parking Management) produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Corporate Services (Parking Management) 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 put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be 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. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to the contrary.

6. ANPR usage
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: '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.'

Corporate Services (Parking Management) fails to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Corporate Services (Parking Management) uses inadequate signage on arrival, as described in section 2 above, 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 by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system, essentially being a secret high-up spy camera, far from 'transparent', unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & 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.

7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
Some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions and consent from the local authorities for their current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of ANPR systems. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to provide evidence that it has the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on the site in question.

8. Business rates
As the car park is being used for the purpose of running a business by Corporate Services (Parking Management), which is entirely separate from any other business the car park is located in the vicinity of, and generates revenue and profit for Corporate Services (Parking Management), I do not believe that Corporate Services (Parking Management) has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at the site in question with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

This concludes my appeal. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Corporate Services (Parking Management) fails to address all points above and provide the necessary evidence as requested.

Yours Faithfully,

JamersPad

PS. I appreciate these would be mitigating circumstances but is it worth mentioning that the whole car park was empty other than my vehicle and one other, it was 8.20pm on a Sunday night and I had merely parked there off the main street just to collect a take-away?

If so, should I add that at the beginning?

da_rule

Get rid of business rates. It's an old appeal point that we don't recommend you use anymore.

Also, in the paragraph under this in the genuine pre-estimate of loss you have "£XX" change this to "£100" just to make it clear that you need them to explain how they arrived at the full amount.

da_rule

Was it a pay and display car park? If so then don't add anything about it being empty.

If it was a free car park then there is an extra paragraph you can add to the appeal.

da_rule

Also, it appears that the ticket was stuck to the vehicle? If that is the case then you need to remove the ANPR stuff (points 5 & 6).

JamersPad

Thank you for your advice, it is a car park for offices so uses permits. Is it worth mentioning it 8.20 on a Sunday night?

Okay how about this:


Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days demanded by Corporate Services (Parking Management) is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs, which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. In its reply to my initial letter requesting a breakdown of how supposed damages of £100 have arisen, Corporate Services (Parking Management) has claimed the following as proof of its alleged ‘losses’ on which the charge is based:

- Wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions
- IT systems, software, licenses and peripherals
- DVLA fees and processing costs
- Costs in preparing and sending PCNs – stationery, postage and printing
- Legal, Accounting and other Professional costs
- Human Resources
- Premises Costs
- Vehicle and Telephone costs
- Loss of Pay and Display Ticket revenue generating from paying customers (where applicable)
- Loss of purchase revenue to Retail Outlets within the car park

Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite my requesting them to do so. As Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.

Given that Corporate Services (Parking Management) charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty.

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question, and I believe the signage at this car park is inadequate for the following reasons.

There is no sign on the entrance and I had to drive back the following day in order to look for them, there are only 3 other signs in this particular car park but 2 of these were not visible from where my vehicle was parked, from where my vehicle was parked only one sign on the opposite brick wall would of been visible, In addition, the wording is so small that it would not be reasonable to assume anyone entering the car park has a chance to read and accept any terms and conditions of parking stated on the signage whilst driving in a safe and responsible manner. It is therefore entirely possible, even expected, that drivers would enter the car park without seeing this sign. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

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”. Corporate Services (Parking Management) must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

4. Unlawful penalty charge
Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Corporate Services (Parking Management) could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.

5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
Some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions and consent from the local authorities for their current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of ANPR systems. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to provide evidence that it has the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on the site in question.

This concludes my appeal. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Corporate Services (Parking Management) fails to address all points above and provide the necessary evidence as requested.

Yours Faithfully,

da_rule

Do they actually have ANPR cameras? If you were ticketed by a person it would appear not so that might need to be removed from the planning permission point.

In terms of when it was etc, no I wouldn't add that to this appeal. The car park being empty and no loss only really applies to free car parks. Although this is a permit car park you probably cannot say whether people have to pay for the permits or not.

JamersPad

da_rule wrote: »

Do they actually have ANPR cameras? If you were ticketed by a person it would appear not so that might need to be removed from the planning permission point.

In terms of when it was etc, no I wouldn't add that to this appeal. The car park being empty and no loss only really applies to free car parks. Although this is a permit car park you probably cannot say whether people have to pay for the permits or not.

No ANPR here, this was a guy who drove in placed the ticket/invoice on the windscreen and drove off, I am not even sure if he took a picture.

So do I need to remove point 5 altogether?

Umkomaas

Remove point 5 if no ANPR. There's no need to query planning consent as it's not something that POPLA will rule on. You need to have a look at point 3 too, as there's a chunk missing.

Purely on a presentational front, I would embolden each of your appeal point headers, helping the assessor spot the 'no GPEOL' paragraph, enabling them to make a quick decision in your favour.

Coupon-mad

Is it worth mentioning it 8.20 on a Sunday night?

Yep in the signage paragraph. You should be adding there, that the car park was 'shrouded in darkness' or 'pitch black' and/or 'not well lit' (you choose the words) and the signage was not capable of being read as it was not clear or reflective in the dark at night. Therefore, no contract was formed at all with me as the driver; I was unaware of any parking restrictions and no consideration flowed between the Operator and myself, no agreement was reached nor acceptance of any clear terms at all.