POPLA stage - Britannia Parking PCN

YJ68

Hi, I have drafted together a rebuttal response to POPLA. I welcome your comments on the content and also which headings you think should go in which order. I was also wondering how much weight the fact they have printed their registration number incorrectly on their signs would hold in my arguments in the section Unclear Signs. They have printed number 08182290, whereas their correct registration number is 08182990.


Dear POPLA Assessor,

POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: XXXXX
REBUTTAL RESPONSE

I have been through Britannia’s Parking Evidence Pack and would respond as follows:

British Parking Association (BPA) – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): Unclear Signs

• In paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP it states:

“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”

Britannia Parking have provided photographs of around 15 signs as evidence of their signs throughout the car park. Yet, only one sign throughout the car park notes the terms & conditions of the car park, including the parking charges – i.e. what actions will incur a parking charge notice and how much will be charged if one breaks those conditions. You will note that even on this ONE sign, the £85 charge is not clearly prominent. It can easily be missed especially in the dark, which was the case on this occasion as it was evening in winter when it is dark at 7:30pm. None of the other signs display these terms and conditions and no mention is made of an £85 charge. This clearly breaches paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP shown above. A driver can, very likely, drive in and only pass a sign with no mention of that sum. Therefore, no contract can exist giving any knowledge to the driver about paying £85. No adequate notice is contrary to the POFA 2012 schedule 4 (which says the parking charge itself, not just vague terms, must be adequately brought to the attention of the driver) and it is contrary to basic contract law.

I would also point out that the company registration number on Britannia's signs (08182290) is not their registration number. This registration number is for a company called Tirant Transport Ltd. This clearly breaches correct signage rules.

No Breach of Contract

Britannia state that:

‘the sign clearly states an £85 Parking Charge Notice will be issued if you fail to make the correct payment....”

and they also state that:

‘there is adequate signage in the car park to bring to your attention the parking contract that is on offer at this car park.... Therefore the parking contract has been correctly offered’

As explained under the heading “Unclear Signs” above, the signs in this car park do not comply with paragraph 18.3 of the CoP. The signs do not contain the specific parking terms throughout the site. Only one sign makes mention of the terms and the £85 charge. Further, the charge on that one sign is not prominently displayed.

Brtiannia state that:

‘In regards to the principle of contra proferentem, in this situation the word “stay” is not ambiguous as the ending of the stay is brought to the driver’s attention on the ticket that was purchased. There was no doubting that the time the driver was able to stay in the car park for was until 21:40 as printed on the ticket’.

I submit that the term stay IS ambiguous, as there is a sign stating that 30 minutes is allowed for free. Therefore, if the ticket expired at 21:40 then a motorist can reasonably assume that they are allowed an extra 30 minutes on top of the 2 hours paid for, and that the 10 minutes grace to leave the car park would start after the 2 and a half hours have lapsed, in which case a parking charge notice should not have been issued until after 22:20, not at 22:02.

No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL) and Beavis v Parking Eye not relevant in this case

Britannia maintain that a genuine pre-estimate of loss can be applied here. However, as requested in my POPLA appeal letter, they have failed to produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this ‘loss’ has been calculated.

Although Britannia have concluded that ‘the Beavis v Parking Eye case is the most appropriate case to use in this instance’, they have overlooked all the points that make this case significantly different from Beavis v Parking Eye, and thus not relevant in this case.

One of the points in favour of the Beavis v Parking Eye case was about prominent, clear signs throughout the car park with the £85 charge shown in large lettering. As pointed out previously, out of the 15 or so signs, that Britannia themselves have submitted in their evidence pack, only one sign shows the £85 charge and is NOT shown in large lettering. Therefore, the Beavis v Parking Eye cannot be applied to this case.

In Beavis v Parking Eye the car park was free with a limited time. In this case the time is not limited and paid for.

In Beavis v Parking Eye the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking spaces. The contract was not a financial one in that there was no economic transaction between ParkingEye and the motorist. In this case, there IS an economic transaction between the Operator and the motorist and no restriction on the time of stay was made provided payment of the tariff was made.

British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice: Grace Periods

• Britannia state they allow a 10 minute grace period once the contract period has ended. They claim that the vehicle left the car park 22 minutes after the ticket had expired, but they have not included the 30 minute free period that this car park allows, so the 10 minute grace period should have been applied after 2 and a half hours to take account of the 30 minutes that is allowed for free. Therefore, the terms & conditions of the car park have not been breached.

• Britannia state that ‘it is without dispute that the vehicle left the car park at 22:02'. However, they have not provided any evidence that proves the clocks on their ANPR system and pay machines are calibrated and synchronised correctly (as requested in my POPLA appeal letter under heading ‘The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate’).

British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): referred to debt collectors during the POPLA window

• Britannia state that their breaching the rules of BPA’s CoP is no reason for a PCN charge to be cancelled. So in effect they are saying “you breached the terms & conditions of this car park (in their view) so we will charge you for that, but it’s okay for us to breach the rules of the Code of Practice and not be held accountable for it”

The fact is they did breach the CoP – In Britannia’s Statement letter dated 24th February 2016, they say that the PCN was sent to debt recovery on 2nd January 2016. Britannia’s rejection letter to my appeal with them is dated 18th January. If they had followed the CoP then they should have immediately contacted Debt Recovery Plus and put a stop to the recovery process. It is obvious that this did not happen as the first letter I received from Debt Recovery Plus is dated 28th January 2016 – 10 days after the date of their rejection letter. This clearly breaches the minimum period of 35 days that the CoP says must be allowed from the date that a challenge is rejected.

The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate

Britannia have stated that the ANPR cameras are monitored daily and that on the day in question the cameras were working at optimum level. However, they have not addressed my comments that the ANPR clock has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock. Further, they have failed 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 because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

Britannia have not explained how their system differs from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in the case of Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 November 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from Parking Eye 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.

Therefore, taking all the above into account, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I think you are saying the right things in the right order.

I'd conclude at the end of the ANPR section, that there are no signs which tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of the ICO registration of any AOS member and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the CPUTRS 2008. A driver would expect the contract to start when purchasing the P&D ticket and expect that 30 minutes would be the 'grace period' because that's the only free time mentioned on signage (2 x 10 minutes is not mentioned, so Britannia cannot now try to redefine the grace period retrospectively with unknown times). Basically the signage in all respects is woefully inadequate in informing a driver about the £85 on 'prominent' plentiful signs and fails the ANPR ICO 'data use' information requirement as well.

YJ68

Thanks Coupon-mad for your continued assistance with my rebuttal appeal.

I have a few questions:

1. Do you think that the arguments I have presented under the GPEOL and Beavis v Parking Eye heading are strong enough? Do you think it is clear enough for the POPLA assessor? Or should I make any other points?

2. What did you think of Britannia's comment about breaching the rules regarding referring the debt to debt collectors during POPLA window not a reason for a PCN to be cancelled? Is my response to that comment fair? Or should I not put it like that??

This is what I put:

So in effect they are saying “you breached the terms & conditions of this car park (in their view) so we will charge you for that, but it’s okay for us to breach the rules of the Code of Practice and not be held accountable for it”

I then go on to explain how they breached the rules giving relevant dates etc.

3. When making their arguments about Beavis v Parking Eye being relevant in this case, Britannia made a statement:

It is noteworthy that the Beavis v Parking Eye case was for a parking charge notice of the same amount, and was in fact in the same town, Chelmsford, Essex. The sites are approximately 1 mile and 5 minutes away from each other

I can't see the relevance of this statement - is it worth me saying that in my rebuttal?

4. Will POPLA take both my letters into account when making their decision? Or just look at the last one? I haven't repeated all the points from the first letter but wonder if I should? Or should I make a statement in the 2nd letter that I want points I have raised in both letters to be considered?

5. Is having an incorrect company registration number printed on their signs a big mistake that can work in my favour? I have pointed this out in the letter but just wondering.

6. Finally, do you think my rebuttal response presents a strong case? Is there anything else I should be mentioning?

I have added the following paragraphs as you suggest - I have barely changed your wording:

"There are no signs which tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of the ICO registration of any AOS member and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

A driver would expect the contract to start when purchasing the Pay & Display ticket and expect that 30 minutes would be the 'grace period' because that is the only free time mentioned on signage (2 x 10 minutes is not mentioned, so Britannia cannot now try to redefine the grace period retrospectively with unknown times). The signage in all respects is woefully inadequate in informing a driver about the £85 on 'prominent' plentiful signs and fails the ANPR ICO 'data use' information requirement as well"

salmosalaris

That the charge is not a gpeol is irrelevant , what you need to do is explain why
A. There is no legitimate interest in enforcing the charge
B. Even if there is a legitimate interest then the charge is disproprtionate to that interest

YJ68

Thanks Salmosalaris.

So should I re-write the whole GPEOL section?

Can you point me in the direction of where I can read up on the points you mention, so I can have some idea of how to word my explanation of those two points?

salmosalaris

YJ68 wrote: »

Thanks Salmosalaris.

So should I re-write the whole GPEOL section?

Can you point me in the direction of where I can read up on the points you mention, so I can have some idea of how to word my explanation of those two points?

What was the loss in revenue ?

YJ68

Apologies if I have not understood your question correctly....

I paid £1.50 for up to 2 hours. They claim I overstayed by 22 minutes. The next level of payment would have been £3.90 for up to 4 hours, so I assume the loss is £2.40??

They haven't provided any information on loss of revenue.

Coupon-mad

You could adapt point (b) here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70213138#Comment_70213138

POPLA need to hear this type of argument again and again so it might sink in and you need to quote from the Judges, I think.

It is noteworthy that the Beavis v Parking Eye case was for a parking charge notice of the same amount, and was in fact in the same town, Chelmsford, Essex. The sites are approximately 1 mile and 5 minutes away from each other

I can't see the relevance of this statement - is it worth me saying that in my rebuttal?

Yes, say it is not 'noteworthy' at all but smacks of a desperate attempt to align a completely different car park arrangement - a standard contract - with the non-comparable 'complex' contract and interests discussed in the Beavis case.

Is having an incorrect company registration number printed on their signs a big mistake that can work in my favour? I have pointed this out in the letter but just wondering.

It could be...I'd say we are not sure how 'new POPLA' will view that, but it is worth including and you have stated it succinctly.

YJ68

Coupon-mad - thanks so much for your further comments and the link to your section b) with arguments I can use in my rebuttal.

I have now revised my letter to include these comments.

One query though, in section b) of the link you referred me to there is a section where you quote from the judgement from the Court of Appeal from ParkingEye v Beavis. Does the quote end after paragraph 47? (there is no closing speech mark at the end of paragraph 47 and I'm not sure whether the bit you are quoting continues after paragraph 47 to the next sentence that starts with "The classic and simple case is..."). Here's the section I am referring to:


"44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''

47. ...When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker...should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)6 Bing. 141 at 148: ..........

---

Here is the revised letter - please let me know if it is okay to submit, or whether anything else needs to be tweaked.

Dear POPLA Assessor,

POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: XXXXX
REBUTTAL RESPONSE

I have been through Britannia’s Parking Evidence Pack and would respond as follows:

British Parking Association (BPA) – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): Unclear Signs

• In paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP it states:

“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”

Britannia Parking have provided photographs of around 15 signs as evidence of their signs throughout the car park. Yet, only one sign throughout the car park notes the terms & conditions of the car park, including the parking charges – i.e. what actions will incur a parking charge notice and how much will be charged if one breaks those conditions. You will note that even on this ONE sign, the £85 charge is not clearly prominent. It can easily be missed especially in the dark, which was the case on this occasion as it was evening in winter when it is dark at 7:30pm. None of the other signs display these terms and conditions and no mention is made of an £85 charge. This clearly breaches paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP shown above. A driver can, very likely, drive in and only pass a sign with no mention of that sum. Therefore, no contract can exist giving any knowledge to the driver about paying £85. No adequate notice is contrary to the POFA 2012 schedule 4 (which says the parking charge itself, not just vague terms, must be adequately brought to the attention of the driver) and it is contrary to basic contract law.

I would also point out that the company registration number on Britannia's signs (08182290) is not their registration number. This registration number is for a company called Tirant Transport Ltd. This clearly breaches correct signage rules.

No Breach of Contract

Britannia state that:

‘the sign clearly states an £85 Parking Charge Notice will be issued if you fail to make the correct payment....”

and they also state that:

‘there is adequate signage in the car park to bring to your attention the parking contract that is on offer at this car park.... Therefore the parking contract has been correctly offered’

As explained under the heading “Unclear Signs” above, the signs in this car park do not comply with paragraph 18.3 of the CoP. The signs do not contain the specific parking terms throughout the site. Only one sign makes mention of the terms and the £85 charge. Further, the charge on that one sign is not prominently displayed.

Brtiannia state that:

‘In regards to the principle of contra proferentem, in this situation the word “stay” is not ambiguous as the ending of the stay is brought to the driver’s attention on the ticket that was purchased. There was no doubting that the time the driver was able to stay in the car park for was until 21:40 as printed on the ticket’.

I submit that the term stay IS ambiguous, as there is a sign stating that 30 minutes is allowed for free. Therefore, if the ticket expired at 21:40 then a motorist can reasonably assume that they are allowed an extra 30 minutes on top of the 2 hours paid for, and that the 10 minutes grace to leave the car park would start after the 2 and a half hours have lapsed, in which case a parking charge notice should not have been issued until after 22:20, not at 22:02.

No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL) and Beavis v Parking Eye not relevant in this case

[STRIKE]Britannia maintain that a genuine pre-estimate of loss can be applied here. However, as requested in my POPLA appeal letter, they have failed to produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this ‘loss’ has been calculated. [/STRIKE]

Although Britannia have concluded that ‘the Beavis v Parking Eye case is the most appropriate case to use in this instance’, they have overlooked all the points that make this case significantly different from Beavis v Parking Eye, and thus not relevant in this case.

One of the points in favour of the Beavis v Parking Eye case was about prominent, clear signs throughout the car park with the £85 charge shown in large lettering. As pointed out previously, out of the 15 or so signs, that Britannia themselves have submitted in their evidence pack, only one sign shows the £85 charge and is NOT shown in large lettering. Therefore, Beavis v Parking Eye cannot be applied to this case.

Britannia state:

“It is noteworthy that the Beavis V Parkin eye (sic) case was for a parking charge notice of the same amount, and was in fact in the same town, Chelmsford, Essex. The sites are approximately 1 mile and 5 minutes away from one another”

This statement is not noteworthy at all, but smacks of a desperate attempt to align a completely different car park arrangement – a standard contract – with the non-comparable ‘complex’ contract and interests discussed in the Beavis case.

[STRIKE]In Beavis v Parking Eye the car park was free with a limited time. In this case the time is not limited and paid for.

In Beavis v Parking Eye the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking spaces. The contract was not a financial one in that there was no economic transaction between Parking Eye and the motorist. In this case, there IS an economic transaction between the Operator and the motorist and no restriction on the time of stay was made provided payment of the tariff was made.[/STRIKE]

Britannia Parking seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors will swallow the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (Britannia Parking and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.

There the similarities end. The Beavis case has no application here, except in favour of my case as appellant.

That decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking licence' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals, and certainly not those which are regarding a Pay and Display site where the alleged loss (tariff) begins as a tangible sum.

This is clearly a 'standard' monetary dispute over an alleged unpaid tariff.

In a standard economic dispute over a financial transaction between a consumer and a trader, like this one, the loss is easily calculable.

By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract which Moore-Bick LJ at the Court of Appeal remarked was 'entirely different' from this sort of financial contract flowing from alleged non-payment of a quantifiable sum to Britannia Parking.

As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that in more complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty.

But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, so the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'. If that was the case, then every alleged underpayment of a quantifiable sum between any trader and consumer could be escalated x 85. If you underpay your paper bill by £1 - the amount due remains at £1, same as in this case - it cannot escalate to £85 because the Beavis case rationale does not apply to standard contracts.

In Beavis, the difference was there was no small sum owed and so, to reach their decision, the Judges had to consider other interests and the value of the free licence to park at that location made it a far more complex contract than this one. None of the reasons that gave Parking Eye a legitimate interest which disengaged the 'penalty rule' in their case against Mr Beavis are present in this material case, in which the penalty rule remains firmly engaged and where there is a quantified tariff in play.

The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment from the same case. The Judges set apart the Beavis contract from this type of 'simple financial contract'. This is one the Judges had seen many times before, where there is a quantified small sum at stake in the first instance as a result of a primary obligation.

This sort of contract was not under discussion in the Beavis case. In fact, the Supreme Court considered that Lord Dunedin's four tests to identify an unenforceable penalty were still a "useful tool" in deciding whether a simple damages clause in a standard contract was 'unconscionable' or 'extravagant'.

The penalty rule is clearly engaged in this case of a standard contract with a quantified tariff, but unlike in Parking Eye v Beavis it is not disengaged by Britannia Parking merely pointing to the Beavis case as if it has blanket relevance (otherwise your local paper shop could point to the Beavis case regarding that £1 underpaid paper bill, as could any trader over any small sum owed). Clearly the 'tweet' from the Supreme Court on the day that their decision was handed down, made it clear that was not the intention of the judgment which turned on its own facts regarding a complex set of circumstances, relevant to a complex contract of its kind only.

At the Court of Appeal stage, when addressing the issue of pre-estimate of loss versus commercial justification, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with HHJ Moloney QC’s findings, and opined at paragraph 27 that: “The application in a case of this kind of a rule based on a simple comparison between the amount of the payment and the direct loss [...] is inappropriate.”

In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.

The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' which was a far more complex one than ''all the previous cases shown to us {which} have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature.''

Here, this is one of those cases Courts have seen many times before, a simple contract of a 'financial/economic nature' and the only interest Britannia Parking has in enforcing their £85 charge instead of the 'outstanding tariff' is Britannia Parking's profit alone.

This position is reinforced in the earlier judgment from the Court of Appeal, where the judgment states:

"44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''

47. ...When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker...should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)6Bing. 141 at 148:

“But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 includes the fact that a consumer cannot lawfully be expected to pay a disproportionate sum in compensation for a small sum owed and is the fundamental legislation relating to standard contracts between traders and consumers. It is applicable to this case.

The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty. They found the contract in Beavis 'entirely different' from simple, commercial 'monetary transaction' cases such as they had seen before.

'ENTIRELY DIFFERENT'. So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this standard economic contract. As Britannia Parking have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for escalating a pound or two parking tariff to £85, they fall foul of the penalty rule...just as ParkingEye would have, if they had taken a 'standard contract' case to Supreme Court level.

British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice: Grace Periods

• Britannia state they allow a 10 minute grace period once the contract period has ended. They claim that the vehicle left the car park 22 minutes after the ticket had expired, but they have not included the 30 minute free period that this car park allows, so the 10 minute grace period should have been applied after 2 and a half hours to take account of the 30 minutes that is allowed for free. Therefore, the terms & conditions of the car park have not been breached.

• Britannia state that ‘it is without dispute that the vehicle left the car park at 22:02'. However, they have not provided any evidence that proves the clocks on their ANPR system and pay machines are calibrated and synchronised correctly (as requested in my POPLA appeal letter under heading ‘The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate’).

British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): referred to debt collectors during the POPLA window

• Britannia state that their breaching the rules of BPA’s CoP is no reason for a PCN charge to be cancelled. So in effect they are saying “you breached the terms & conditions of this car park (in their view) so we will charge you for that, but it’s okay for us to breach the rules of the Code of Practice and not be held accountable for it”

The fact is they did breach the CoP – In Britannia’s Statement letter dated 24th February 2016, they say that the PCN was sent to debt recovery on 2nd January 2016. Britannia’s rejection letter to my appeal with them is dated 18th January. If they had followed the CoP then they should have immediately contacted Debt Recovery Plus and put a stop to the recovery process. It is obvious that this did not happen as the first letter I received from Debt Recovery Plus is dated 28th January 2016 – 10 days after the date of their rejection letter. This clearly breaches the minimum period of 35 days that the CoP says must be allowed from the date that a challenge is rejected.

The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate

Britannia have stated that the ANPR cameras are monitored daily and that on the day in question the cameras were working at optimum level. However, they have not addressed my comments that the ANPR clock has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock. Further, they have failed 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 because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

Britannia have not explained how their system differs from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in the case of Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 November 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from Parking Eye 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.

There are no signs which tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of the ICO registration of any AOS member and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

A driver would expect the contract to start when purchasing the Pay & Display ticket and expect that 30 minutes would be the 'grace period' because that is the only free time mentioned on signage (2 x 10 minutes is not mentioned, so Britannia cannot now try to redefine the grace period retrospectively with unknown times). The signage in all respects is woefully inadequate in informing a driver about the £85 on 'prominent' plentiful signs and fails the ANPR ICO 'data use' information requirement as well.

Therefore, taking all the above into account, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure whether the bit you are quoting continues after paragraph 47 to the next sentence that starts with "The classic and simple case is..."

Yes it does continue like that in the Court of Appeal decision.