Parking Eye - Two Saints car park

jonscf3

Hi All

I received a parking charge notice reminder (reminder for what I don't know as this is the first letter I have had from them) this morning from ParkingEye with Parking Charge amount of £100 reduced to £60 if paid by 28th August 2014 (bearing in mind this is the 29th today).

It states that the driver was 16 minutes over the free 1 hour parking on the 9th August 2014, the driver purchased goods from 3 different retailers from the park whilst there.

I have read your sticky's and have copied, pasted and edited your template. is someone able to give this letter the once over before I post it? It would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much in advance

Dear Parking Eye,

As the registered keeper of xxxx xxx I'm in receipt of your parking charge notice with the Reference Number: 00000/00000 with an issue date of 14/08/14. I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to your company is denied on the following:

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
4) The driver was a paying customer of more than one of the retailers at the site when they parked at the retail park on that day
5) The 16 minutes they were over was actually the time taken to enter the car park, find a space, park the car, then return to the car, leave the space and exit the car park. The date in question is a Saturday and therefore the busiest shopping day of the week meaning a reasonable amount of ‘grace time’ to enter and exit the car park is the minimum expected by customers as per the BPA code of practice.

These points and others will be raised with POPLA should you not accept this appeal, and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and your full unredacted contract with the landowner.

If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter, or forward a POPLA verification code.

Faithfully

Redx

if that is indeed the template from the sticky thread, its in there to prevent people asking "is this correct"

of course its correct, or it would not be in there, so use it , there is the shortened version for PE and longer versions for everyone else or for snail mail

now please edit post #1 as you have used the incorrect word I too many times, it should not be used at all !

the correct terminology would be something like The Driver

so The driver parked on the car park, the driver overstayed , etc

you need to learn to not drop yourself in it or give too much info on a public forum, we dont need it and usually the story on the day is not relevant

its a 2 stage appeal

first to PE

second stage to POPLA

drafting your popla appeal is something you would need to do but post #3 covers that, again to prevent the basic questions and leave us to actually help people with the bits that need it

good luck

jonscf3

Hi

Thanks for you reply

The letter is almost identical to one you wrote back in january for barry1108.

My apologies for checking, i'm very new to this and wanted to make sure I didn't fluff it up.

Thanks again

Redx

in that case its not the one from the NEWBIES sticky thread at the top of this forum

please use the latest shortened version for PE from post #1 of that newbies thread

I could not read it properly as it was in blue

thank you for editing post #1 too, PE do read these forums same as you or I

jonscf3

Hi again

As requested I read the required posts on here and sent an appeal to parking eye using their online submission form. which read:

"Dear Parking eye

PCN ref ******

I have received your PCN impersonating a 'parking ticket' and will be complaining in the strongest terms to your client. No doubt you convinced them that your operation is some sort of 'parking space maximisation scheme' when it is nothing of the sort and is simply there to maximise your own profits.

I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

A The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss.
B You are not the landowner and do not have locus standi.
C Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract.

If you choose not to cancel this invoice you must issue a rejection letter in reply to my appeal, explaining:
1 The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
If you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis at POPLA, I will point out that it was a flawed decision, it is not binding, and it is set for the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.
2 Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site.
3 Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves.
4 A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.
5 The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS.

Certificate of posting will be obtained for all my written responses & I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.

Regards"

I have received a lengthy letter rejecting my appeal with a POPLA reference.

As advised, I have researched your work on here and have drafted a letter to POPLA but as the circumstances are different to the example appeals posted on here with regards to parkingeye I have had to make some changes.

I know its a big ask as you all must be very busy already on here helping people like me out, but if someone could give it the once over I would really appreciate it.

it reads:

"Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code:

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) Contract with the landowner – Not compliant with the BPA code of practice and no legal status to offer parking or enforce charges.
3) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed
4) Unfair Terms
5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is a free shopping car park limited to 1 hour parking. It is alleged I overstayed in this car park by the total time of 16 minutes.

In ParkingEye v Smith at Manchester County Court in 2011, claim number 1XJ81016, the original claim of £240 was deemed an unrecoverable penalty, unrelated to damages incurred and the only sum that could be recovered was deemed to be £15 (the amount of the pay and display fee for more than one visit). The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. As the PCN sum is massively inflated, I require ParkingEye to submit a breakdown of how this sum was calculated prior to the parking event, as being capable of directly flowing from a minor alleged breach.

The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking.

The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 30 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.

The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):

The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"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.''

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) 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.''

3) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed

The occupants of the car recall seeing no signs on entrance to the car park. Even if signage is present; the date and time of the alleged incident, along with the layout of the entrance to the car park, means that any signage requiring more than a quick glance to read in its entirety would require the driver to stop the vehicle at an entrance to a busy car park, leading from a busy main road which poses unnecessary risk to the occupants of the car and other road users, therefore rendering the signage inadequate.

Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the signs are or where they are situated with reference to the ability to safely read the signage. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show photo evidence of these signs are both clearly visable and situated somewhere that is safe to fully read and understand the terms and conditions of using the car park. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. This would include the signs being lit - and it can be seen from ParkingEye's own photos of an isolated numberplate in the dark, that the entrance (where signs must be clear) was in fact pitch black. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

2) ParkingEye do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, ParkingEye have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

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

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS)v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, asset out above.

The Operator, neither through the original correspondence, nor reply to appeal make no reference to the recovery of monies for the Landlord at all.

4) 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. In particular, 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 fulfill 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" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

If ParkingEye's ANPR records are completely reliable (which I contest) then this Operator claims the car was parked for around 16 minutes more than the free time allocated. And yet their evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out, which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Parking Eye 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. It was approaching darkness and if there was such a sign at all then it was neither lit nor prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

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 as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case.

I request that my appeal is allowed.

Yours faithfully"

Thank you so much in advance, i really do appreciate it. and of course successful or not I will inform you how it goes and post any responses here for others to benefit from.

Umkomaas

Your opening remark under appeal point 1) identifies the driver - change that!

Under your Signage appeal point you make a statement about a photograph taken at night: if your parking incident was at night, then this is ok, if not, it shouldn't be in there - and devalues your appeal and gives the appearance you don't fully understand what you've [STRIKE]copied[/STRIKE] written.

Then ...... Your paragraph numbering is all over the place. 1) is followed by 3), which is followed by 2). Needs sorting!

Appeal paragraph numbered 2) doesn't have a header as the others do.

Your paragraph headers should match exactly the bullet point headers and the numbers must run in the same order.

A bit of work to do.

jonscf3

thank you, letter writing is not my strong point.

I will get the corrections sorted in the morning and post the final draft here.

Other than those points, do you think the appeal is strong enough to send to POPLA?

Thanks again.

jonscf3

I have corrected the faults pointed out and here's the next draft, any good?

Thanks in advance.

"Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code:

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) Contract with the landowner – Not compliant with the BPA code of practice and no legal status to offer parking or enforce charges.
3) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed
4) Unfair Terms
5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

This car park is a free shopping car park limited to 1 hour parking. It is alleged the driver overstayed in this car park by the total time of 16 minutes.

In ParkingEye v Smith at Manchester County Court in 2011, claim number 1XJ81016, the original claim of £240 was deemed an unrecoverable penalty, unrelated to damages incurred and the only sum that could be recovered was deemed to be £15 (the amount of the pay and display fee for more than one visit). The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. As the PCN sum is massively inflated, I require ParkingEye to submit a breakdown of how this sum was calculated prior to the parking event, as being capable of directly flowing from a minor alleged breach.

The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking.

The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 30 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.

The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):

The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"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.''

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) 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) Contract with the landowner – Not compliant with the BPA code of practice and no legal status to offer parking or enforce charges.

ParkingEye do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, ParkingEye have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

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

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS)v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, asset out above.

The Operator, neither through the original correspondence, nor reply to appeal make no reference to the recovery of monies for the Landlord at all.

3) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed

The occupants of the car recall seeing no signs on entrance to the car park. Even if signage is present; the date and time of the alleged incident, along with the layout of the entrance to the car park, means that any signage requiring more than a quick glance to read in its entirety would require the driver to stop the vehicle at an entrance to a busy car park, leading from a busy main road which poses unnecessary risk to the occupants of the car and other road users, therefore rendering the signage inadequate.

Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the signs are or where they are situated with reference to the ability to safely read the signage. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show photo evidence of these signs are both clearly visable and situated somewhere that is safe to fully read and understand the terms and conditions of using the car park. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

4) 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. In particular, 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 fulfill 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" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

If ParkingEye's ANPR records are completely reliable (which I contest) then this Operator claims the car was parked for around 16 minutes more than the free time allocated. And yet their evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out, which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Parking Eye 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. It was approaching darkness and if there was such a sign at all then it was neither lit nor prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

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 as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case.

I request that my appeal is allowed.

Yours faithfully,"

Dee140157

This is a good standard response, so looks good to go now. See you in a couple of months with the standard upheld appeal with another PSDSU

Umkomaas

Much better jonscf3 - send it on its way.

jonscf3

Thanks guys, really appreciate your help.

Hope it's successful, and as promised I will post any correspondence and decisions on here for others to benefit from.