POPLA appeal - advice on a car park location in appeal

chuckie79

Thank you again for the advice given on my previous post

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5349577=


I have just been reading through my draft appeal and have a query regarding what to put for the location of the car park. The PCN states the car park in question was "English Gate Plaza South, Cumbria". On googling this address there is no car park, only a building called English Gate Plaza.

Now I know there are 2 possible car parks, both with entrances on different roads not on the same road the English Gate Plaza building is on.

Do I write that the keeper can't find the address listed so has no idea which car park the PCN relates to or do I state the keeper drove round the area and found 2 car parks, on 2 different roads, which when the keeper walked round them saw the name English gate Plaza on the signs?

The second option lets me put the details of the signage in the appeal and having no contract with the land owner I guess.

Thanks in advance

Fruitcake

Don't say you can't find it, just make a statement that: -


The car park quoted on the NTK does nor exist. There is no such location. Then put the PPC to proof that there is such a car park.


Somewhere in the BPA CoP (I think) it says that there must be a valid physical address for the place where the alleged parking event took place.
This may be in POFA 2012 requirements instead, or both, but I'm not an expert in that area.


Put in all the other appeal points as well.
Inadequate signage, stating why they are inadequate (not to BPA CoP standards. Pics to prove your point will help.

The event didn't happen (the car park doesn't esist.)
No contract with landowner.
No standing to levy charges in their own right.


Alas I believe GPEOL is no longer available due to the Beavis result.

Coupon-mad

do I state the keeper drove round the area and found 2 car parks, on 2 different roads, which when the keeper walked round them saw the name English gate Plaza on the signs?

The second option lets me put the details of the signage in the appeal and having no contract with the land owner I guess.

I would do the above, but have never seen a POPLA appeal won on that point.

Your threads will need merging as we need one case, one thread.

chuckie79

Thank you both. Coupon-mad by stating the 2 car parks found I can then put in about poor signage.

Sorry for duplicate posts, I didn't realise.

Herzlos

Does it make sense to go into specifics about the signage if your first point is that the car park doesn't exist? If you submit photos of the signs then you're proving it does exist and you know where it is.

Would a general point be more useful "If this car park does exist, I contend that the signage will be insufficient according to the BPA CoP as Parking Eye have a well documented tract record of poor signage. Obviously, as the car park specified does not exist, I can't provide any examples"

Ditto for landowner permission "As Parking eye has a well documented track record of not having sufficient permission to issue tickets, I contend that if this car park does exist, they do not have sufficient permission. Again, as I don't know which location they mean, I cannot provide specifics".

Really hammer home the point that you have been issued an invoice for a fictional location.

chuckie79

Thank you Herzlos I was losing the plot this morning with it all, so after a lunch break I have done as you suggested. I'm very grateful for your help.

Herzlos

If you haven't submitted it yet, it might be worth adding the text here for others to have a look at first.

chuckie79

What I have so far is -

I am the keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXXXXXX
On 1/10/15 I received by mail a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper from Parking Eye alleging a parking “offence” on 25/09/15, at “English Gate Plaza South, Carlisle”, and demanding a Charge.

My original appeal on 5/10/15 to the operator Parking Eye directly was rejected and I was supplied with a POPLA verification code. I searched online for the address of the “English Gate Plaza South, Carlisle” car park and was unable to find an address listed. The searches only brought up a building called “English Gate Plaza”.

I contend that as the vehicles’ registered keeper I am not liable for the alleged Charge for the following reasons:-

1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
2) Lack of car park address
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate - evidence does not discount two visits shown as one.

1)The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
As this was a Pay/Display car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed!

I can see from the limited information before me in the NTK, only that the car stayed for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was 'either/or' an overstay or failure to pay. This does not create any certainty of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder what the hourly rate tariff even was and whether the driver paid nothing, or paid too little, or paid only for half an hour or an hour, or paid in full but put in the wrong car registration, or some other event. This Operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect/record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able - and indeed are required under the POFA - to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued.

These are the omissions:
''9(2)The notice must—
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid...'

The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.

2) Lack of car park address
If this car park does exist, I contend that the signage will be insufficient according to the BPA CoP as Parking Eye have a well documented tract record of poor signage. Obviously, as the car park specified does not exist, I can't provide any examples.

3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. As Parking Eye has a well documented track record of not having sufficient permission to issue tickets, I contend that if this car park does exist, they do not have sufficient permission. Again, as I don't know which location they mean, I cannot provide specifics.

4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate, and there is no evidence that this was just one visit
ParkingEye's 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. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event.

As keeper I cannot discount that this may have been a double visit. Or the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out to get change before returning (and of course the ANPR cameras show only the first and last visits). The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR-work
The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Even if an Operator shows a list with 'no record' of that car registration in between the times, this would not discount the 'double visit' possibility as it is well known that car registrations are completely missed when a vehicle is followed closely by a higher vehicle, or by a temporary interruption in the camera recording. Or even an item temporarily obscuring the camera from picking up one car registration, such as a passing bird or wind-blown carrier bag or leaves appearing in front of the camera, even for moments, would stop a record appearing of a car leaving in between the stated times. I put the Operator to strict proof to the contrary. All camera records could be checked and this Operator would still be unable to refute the 'double visit' possibility, since they don't bother to record continuous footage, this not being CCTV. If I am wrong then they must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no more entries or exits that day by this car.

Further, 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 and used. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and how the data will be used and stored. . 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. Indeed, I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Parking Eye 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.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Herzlos

I'd expand on the lack of address and move the signage to a separate point to make it clearer. Even someone like "without specifying the exact location of the alleged incident, POFA2012 has not been complied with and I am unable to perform any specific research in reply"

chuckie79

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd expand on the lack of address and move the signage to a separate point to make it clearer. Even someone like "without specifying the exact location of the alleged incident, POFA2012 has not been complied with and I am unable to perform any specific research in reply"

Thank you for your help, sorry for the delay in replying.

Coupon-mad

You really do need your threads merged!

Half the info is missing so we can't see what's what. For example from your other thread:

chuckie79 wrote: »

First of all I apologise for making a new post as I am in the middle of reading all the different posts on appealing a parking charge but I'm getting very confused.

I am appealing the parking charge on behalf of one of my clients who is so vulnerable there is no way they could do this for themselves. They parked in a Parking Eye car park and did not purchase a parking ticket because they are a blue badge holder and thought they could park for free, as they can do in council run car parks. The car park operates a vehicle registration system, clocking the registration on entering and leaving the car park. You have to enter your registration number when purchasing a ticket.

I used the advice here to send the appeal to the Parking Eye and did not disclose who the driver was.

Parking Eye have sent photo's of the car entering the car park at 14:01 and leaving at 18:53. The amount due is £100 so I know I need to put this in the appeal as unreasonable charges. I will go and check the charges but I think the charges would have been approx. £6.

If anyone can point me in the right direction to find what I need to include I would be very grateful.

Thank you