Athena ANPR declined appeal

Spikey2014

Hi everyone. I got PCN couple of weeks ago for overstaying at lidl car park to which I appealed using one of your templates and got popla code. I haven't been to lidl yet to try to overturn it by a manager, but the letters I have been sent seem to include everything according POFA, so I'm a bit scared my appeal may not be accepted by POPLA. What are my chances? Many thanks :-)

gertysingh

PPCs are always likely to decline appeals 'cos they make 3 billion (a report that came out stated this) a year on parking charges! Anyway Standard advice: read the "Newbies" sticky thread first and then write out yr Popla appeal and put here for folks to see.

Dee140157

Post 3 will tell you everything you need to know. The magic blue words "How to win at POPLA" are especially useful.

Parking-Prankster

Lidl are interesting. A few years back they realised the PPC they hired was making more profit out of their car parks than they were in some stores. They promptly booted out the PPC and entered a new contract with Athena to look after their car parks for a management fee. Now, Lidl get to keep the juicy profits while Athena get the scraps (possibly as low as £6-£7 per ticket). Lidl of course don't want people to know this, because they are plundering their own customer base for fun and profit. Probably the store manager won't even know this, so be sure and appraise them of the true situation when you go to them to get the ticket cancelled.


I'll probably blog this when I have time.


PP

Spikey2014

Hello

First just want to say thanks for the newbie thread on these PCN's.

Now I'm at the POPLA stage and have finished writing my appeal and was hoping someone could just skim over it to see if I have missed anything or need to add anything? Would be much appreciated.
The company in question is Athena ANPR.

Here is my appeal:

POPLA Verification Code:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Parking Charge Amount:

Dear POPLA assessor,

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above, I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, I would ask that all points are 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 PCN's
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
5. ANPR accuracy
6. ANPR usage
7. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
8. Proof of planning consent for 1 hour parking allowed and ANPR system

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss - The Amount of (Amount) demanded by Athena ANPR is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a Supermarket. As this is a free car park and the car park was at less than 50% capacity at the time there can be no losses incurred from onsite parking charges or retail revenue. I request Athena ANPR to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of (Amount).

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

Given that Athena ANPR charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 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 has been 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 parking charge, 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.

No doubt Athena ANPR will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye Ltd. car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.'' My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.
Nor is the charge 'commercially justified'. If ParkingEye cite 'ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley' it's irrelevant since Mr Beavis is taking that flawed small claim decision to the Court of Appeal, just as HHJ Moloney fully expected at the time he made his decision, which was full of caveats and full of holes and a distinct lack of case law. Re: this case, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage - Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question, and the signage at this car park especially at the entrance is inadequate for numerous reasons. The signage at entrance of the car park is not " in drivers view"-it's on it side, so the driver needs to look totally to his left to notice it, and then stop to read it, which doesn't normally happen that someone stops in the middle of the road to read a sign; has no lighting and doesn't have a reflective background which makes it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and Athena ANPR. The fact the sign is unlit makes it difficult to read in dark conditions or during adverse weather. All these reasons make it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signage upon entering especially during adverse weather conditions.

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

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's - Athena ANPR do not own this car park and are merely agents of the landowner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters Athena ANPR have provided me with no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Athena ANPR 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 Athena ANPR produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Athena ANPR.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013 District Judge Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land.This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking Operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. My case is the same.

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 parking management, 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.
4. 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 unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. Athena ANPR 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.
5. ANPR accuracy - Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking companies to make sure ANPR equipment is maintained and in correct working order. I require Athena ANPR 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. 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. It is vital that parking eye 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 recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Joneson 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 Athena ANPR 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 Athena ANPR to strict proof to the contrary.

6. ANPR usage - Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states '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'.

7. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms - The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

An unlit sign of terms placed in a pedestrian traffic area, is far from 'transparent'.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

8. Proof of planning consent for 1 hour parking allowed and ANPR system - It as been known that some parking companies to not have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the parking time limit and installation of ANPR cameras. So I put Athena ANPR to strict proof to provide evidence that they have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities to operate this car park on a 1 hour time limit and for the installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on this site.


This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Athena ANPR fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.


Yours Faithfully,


Thank you in advance

ColliesCarer

Hi Spikey,

That appeal was one originally written against Parking Eye.

As Athena attempt to claim their charge is a contractual sum you would be better regarding the not a genuine pre estimate of loss point, using one specifically written against Athena at Lidl stores, like these

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65263076#Comment_65263076

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65616905#Comment_65616905

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65665980#Comment_65665980

The_Slithy_Tove

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

Lidl are interesting. A few years back they realised the PPC they hired was making more profit out of their car parks than they were in some stores. They promptly booted out the PPC and entered a new contract with Athena to look after their car parks for a management fee. Now, Lidl get to keep the juicy profits while Athena get the scraps (possibly as low as £6-£7 per ticket). Lidl of course don't want people to know this, because they are plundering their own customer base for fun and profit. Probably the store manager won't even know this, so be sure and appraise them of the true situation when you go to them to get the ticket cancelled.

And are either Lidl or Athena paying business rates on their car parks where they are clearly both making a profit on a business operating there? That would also explain why the time limit at Lidl was reduced to 60 minutes (from 90). Thieving ba*****s.

Coupon-mad

No doubt Athena ANPR will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye Ltd. car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.'' My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.
Nor is the charge 'commercially justified'. If ParkingEye cite 'ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley'

The above is all ParkingEye stuff, Athena aren't famous for their template bluster/commercial justification! Just adapt an Athena version not a PE version.

Spikey2014

So guys, shud I use this?


POPLA Code:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Athena ANPR
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

On xx of xxx 2014 I was sent an invoice from Athena ANPR as registered keeper of the above vehicle requiring payment of a charge of £90 for an alleged parking contravention.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:


1 ) - Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 ) - No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
3 ) - No authority to levy charges
4 ) - Lack of contract
5 ) – Cameras


1) This charge is not a contractually agreed sum. It is a disguised breach and is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Athena ANPR Ltd have not made clear the basis of their charge. Having visited the site, it appears they may be claiming the charge is a contractually agreed sum which I dispute. In my original appeal to Athena ANPR Ltd I requested that they clarify the basis of the charge. If alleging 'contractual fee' I requested they send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate of parking, however, in their rejection letter Athena ANPR Ltd failed to address this point and failed to provide the information or VAT invoice requested. Nor have they provided a calculation to show this is a genuine pre estimate of loss if alleging breach of contract.

a) This charge is not a contractually agreed sum – it is a disguised breach

If this charge was a contractually agreed fee the sign would been worded to offer various durations of parking at various costs. In addition a payment mechanism would have been provided on-site and a VAT invoice supplied. This is not the case here.

This is a free (for 60 minutes) car park and there is no mechanism to pay for additional parking. The signage indicates that parking for over 60 minutes attracts a £90 charge and, as no limits are specified, this could equally apply for an additional 10 minutes, 10 weeks or indeed 10 years!

The same sum is also sought for returning to the car park within 2 hours, something clearly disallowed by the wording “No return within 2 hours … “, which is immediately followed by “or charge of £90 will apply” - in other words “don’t do this or else” which shows the charges are actually for failing to comply, which equals a deterrent for breach.

In addition no VAT invoice has been provided and I have no evidence that this business operation on this car park has been registered for business rates.

Despite what the sign attempts to say, it is not an offer to park for a fee and it is clear that the true and predominant purpose of the alleged 'parking operation' at (insert location) is to deter breach and, in the absence of evidence that this charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss, it is an unrecoverable penalty.

In a recent ruling at Luton Crown Court 2014 (Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty) the judge ruled that sum quoted on the sign was not a genuine offer to park at that price, but its main purpose was to deter. It was, therefore, a penalty dressed up as a contractual term, and not recoverable.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79, there is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach”.

It would normally be for the owner to claim for loss which is nothing as there are no fees for using this car park and there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged). It is unfair to attempt to make a party pay excessively for an event that would normally be 'breach of contract'.

I require Athena ANPR Ltd to provide a VAT invoice, details of the daily rates of parking and proof that this chargeable regime at this location is registered for business rates.

b) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

If the sum is sought as damages for breach of contract then under established contract law it must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss arising from the breach.

The car park is free and there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged). I submit that on a free car park there can be no loss arising from any alleged overstay.

The demand for £90 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount
has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it exceeds the BPA’s own Code of Practice.
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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.
The appellant requires Athena ANPR to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the
charge dismissed.



2 ) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Athena ANPR, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Athena ANPR or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability under Paragraph 9 it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3) No Legal Standing or Authority to Pursue Charges or Form Contracts with Drivers

Athena ANPR Ltd are not the landowner and do not have title or assigned interest in this land which means that they have no have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper.

Athena ANPR Ltd is a member of the British Parking Association, and the BPA Code of Practice states, in Section 7.1, that the operator must have written authority from the landowner to recover parking charges, including pursuing through court action in their own name.

I therefore put Athena ANPR Ltd to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location in question i.e. a relevant contemporaneous contract with the landowner (not an individual lessee or managing agent as they are another third party) to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor. In the event that witness statements are submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, I require that this should be disregarded as insufficient to prove full BPA compliance.

Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions Parking Charge Notices, I submit that such a contract is a commercial matter between the Operator and the owner/occupier and the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any such contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Athena ANPR Ltd and the owner/occupier. Such a contract would contain nothing that Athena ANPR Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer as it doesn’t create any contractual relationship between Athena ANPR Ltd and motorists who used the land. A parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4 ) No contract
There was no contract between the driver and Athena ANPR. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. And even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5 ) Cameras
Athena ANPR are obliged to make sure their equipment is in working order and comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21. The appellant required them to present evidence on whether the cameras were checked and maintained recently in relation to the date of the alleged incident, to ensure the accuracy of any Athena ANPR images. They have failed to do so, although this is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) is also compliant with legal and BPA requirements and demand that they demonstrate adherence.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours faithfully ,

Coupon-mad

Yes that's the one! Submit that online to POPLA and tick 3 out of 4 appeal boxes, as we always say. It is obvious which box you don't tick...

Spikey2014

Ps. I have added this too:


In addition to this the BPA code of practice states 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."

Athena ANPR fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Athena ANPR places the signs out of drivers view to see 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 by ANPR 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 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.

6 ) Non-compliant notice to Registered Keeper

According to Schedule 4 of POFA, act 8.1:

(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
There isn't any mentioning of option to complain, only to name driver or pay, or if not it will be passed onto Debt collection agency. Appeal information is on the back of the paper, in small font, unlike the rest that is in bold, red, and much larger.