Highview ANPR - Riverside Norwich - My case

PinkyFloyd · 9 November 2014 at 6:41PM

Hi all,

Just thought I should log my case on this forum. I have recently successfully appealed an ANPR Parking Charge at the Riverside Retail Park in Norwich. The background is, the Retail Park Car Park has a 2.5 hr free parking limit, which is signed on the way in but not well signed. I have been there numerous times and have never noticed it before. Anyway, on the day in question the traffic to leave the car park was horrendous. We had parked for about 2 hrs 20 mins when we decided to go home, but the traffic meant that the time in the car park was about 2hrs 45. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras picked up my car as it entered and left the car park. A week later I received a Parking Charge Notice through the post for £70 (reduced to £40 if promptly paid).

After much Googling and browsing the forums here I came up with the following initial appeal letter, which I emailed to Highview. Within a few days they replied saying that claims I made had been upheld and the charges had been revoked. Win! :T

So, here's my letter. Feel free to use it in your appeals, particularly if you have been picked up by ANPR cameras on entry/exit to a car park and you are just over the freeparking time limit

(Some details have been removed to protect the innocent.)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Charge Notice Ref No: XXXXXXXXXX
Vehicle registration number: SO75 YCD

I was issued a parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper for the vehicle referenced above on XXXXX 2014 which was recorded as “parked” at Riverside Retail Park A, Norwich for a greater duration that the maximum 2.5 hours as stated on the signage. I believe that the Parking Charge Notice has been unfairly issued. I decline your request to identify the driver as there is no legal obligation for me to do so.

The charge should be dismissed for the reason that the alleged duration of parking and ‘overstay’ is incorrect and the actual duration of parking does not violate the terms and conditions as displayed on the signage. The Charge Notice states that “the vehicle was recorded as parked on our client’s property at Riverside Retail Park A from XXXXXX 12:17 to XXXXXX 15:01” This is not true for the following reasons:

• Firstly, the ANPR cameras are located at the entry and exit to the Riverside Retail Park A which is approximately 100m away from where the vehicle was actually parked on the day. The images that were included in the Charge Notice clearly show that the car was being driven into and out of the car park at the times XXXXX 12:17:40 and XXXXXX 15:01:00, and they do not show when the car was parked on your client’s property. This is clear evidence that the car was not parked on the property for the duration that you claim.

• Secondly, the occupants of the car recall that the car park was extremely busy on the day in question and it took approximately 5 minutes to find a space upon arrival and over 15 minutes to exit the car park upon departure. This time to exit the car park was due to a combination of the large number of other vehicles leaving at the same time and the poor traffic light phasing at the junction of the Retail Park road and the public road at Riverside. These factors caused a significant delay to the departure of the vehicle from the Retail Park car park, and thus a delay to the time that it was captured by the ANPR camera. This resulted in an extension to the duration that the vehicle was recorded as being on your client’s property. However, it did not result in an extension to the duration that the vehicle was actually parked on your client’s property. I refer you to case 3JD08399 in the Altrincham County Court where District Judge Hayes ruled that driving around a car park looking for a space or exiting is not considered to be “parking”. Additionally, BPA Ltd Code of Practice Para 13.4 states that members should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before they take enforcement action. This has not been followed in this case. The period to leave the car park on the day in question was exceptionally long, but this is a factor outside the control of the driver and the registered keeper and they should not be punished, charged or held accountable for any ‘overstay’ resulting from it.

• Thirdly, the BPA Ltd Code of Practice Para 21.1 requires that parking operators can only rely on ANPR evidence if it is done in “a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner”. Highview Parking has failed to recognise that it takes additional time to enter the car park, time to find a suitable free space, time to eventually to leave, and that these times can vary from minute to minute. The duration that a vehicle is parked cannot be seen from the ANPR images. Accordingly, the evidence shown on the Charge Notice is unreasonable, inconsistent and non-transparent. Your claim for a parking charge for an alleged overstay based solely of the entry and exit times recorded by ANPR cameras is flawed and cannot be relied upon, on a balance of probabilities, to prove a violation of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. This also means that the Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 ‘Recovery of unpaid parking charges’ paragraph 8(2)(a) due to the fact that it fails to state the “period of parking”.

• Fourthly, the vehicle was actually parked on your client’s property from 12:20hrs to 14.45hrs, which is a duration of 2hrs 25 minutes and is therefore less that the 2hrs 30mins maximum as stated on the signage at the car park.

I therefore respectfully request that the charge is dismissed. Please be aware that if the charge is not dismissed then I shall lodge a formal appeal through POPLA, therefore please include a POPLA code in any future correspondence with me.

Yours faithfully,

MR P Floyd