Lost at POPLA against Parking Eye - what next?

The_Deep

It would seem that, if Popla continues to misinterpret the SC judgement, we should be advising clients to treat them with the contempt which we reserve at present to the IAS.


If, as I assume, these assessors are law graduates, then surely they should not be confused about the very limited application of the SC judgement, it certainly has very little relevance in P&D car parks, hospitals, and residential car parks.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

If, as I assume, these assessors are law graduates, then surely they should not be confused about the very limited application of the SC judgement, it certainly has very little relevance in P&D car parks, hospitals, and residential car parks.

Confusion must relate to lack of knowledge by these so called assessors. If those on here are not confused, there is clearly a huge problem with POPLA.

The BPA/POPLA is indeed fast becoming a failed organisation and if they continue in this manner, they place themselves on par with the IAS where appeals and the word "appeals" becomes useless and no longer viable

C4WRX

I have now edited the first post to be readable, apologies for that.


Don't worry, my username does not relate to the car in question in this case


Yes the car park in question was a pay and display hospital car park. I did state in my initial appeal that the Beavis case should have no bearing in this instance, but the assessor seems to have disregarded my comments. Hopefully a lead assessor will see the relevance of my comments.


And no, PE did not provide the up to date audit or history of the ANPR audit in their evidence.


In the meantime, any more advice on what points I can include in my email would be appreciated.


I will post up the email once I compose it to get all your opinions on it.

steve1500

C4WRX wrote: »

I have now edited the first post to be readable, apologies for that.


Yes the car park in question was a pay and display hospital car park. I did state in my initial appeal that the Beavis case should have no bearing in this instance, but the assessor seems to have disregarded my comments. Hopefully a lead assessor will see the relevance of my comments.

.

Demand the contract under the Freedom of Information Act. The hospital cannot just refuse stating Commercial in Confidence.


If they have not used a standard NHS contract demand to know why & on whose authority.


It is DoH policy that NHS standard contracts should be used, even for these scum bag & trust me, they do not conform to the T & C's of the contract, if it is a standard NHS contract


Do you know if the signs said this is "Private Land". All NHS land in Public Land NOT private land. Since they need the landowners permission to take someone to court they will have a hell of problem, they haven't got mine I own at least 1 square inch of the ground

Myriddin

steve1500 wrote: »

Demand the contract under the Freedom of Information Act.

And OP, make sure you demand the full document whilst quoting this:

First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (IPSA v Information Commissioner (EA/2012/0242)).
"The Commissioner recognised that FOIA is drafted so
as to provide a right to information rather than
documents. FOIA requires, however, that (subject to
exemptions) the public authority communicate all of the
information within the scope of a request. In most cases
involving requests for copies of particular documents,
this obligation is to be met by disclosing copies of the
actual documents. In other words, extracts or
transcripts will often not capture all of the recorded
information contained in the relevant document."

C4WRX

steve1500 wrote: »

Do you know if the signs said this is "Private Land". All NHS land in Public Land NOT private land. Since they need the landowners permission to take someone to court they will have a hell of problem, they haven't got mine I own at least 1 square inch of the ground

I have just checked the evidence pack and there is a sign that says "This car park is private property, see signage in car park for full terms and conditions".

So that would be another Parking Eye lie then...

C4WRX

Ok,here is a draft of my letter to send to POPLA. Let me know your thoughts and what I can do to improve it:


POPLA CODE: XXXXXXXXXX

To Whom It May Concern,

I appealed a parking charge notice as registered keeper of vehicle reg XXXX XXX.
A decision was made by POPLA that my appeal was unsuccessful.
I wish for my case to be re-assessed for the following reasons:

1.The assessor quoted:
“ANPR usage: I note the appellant says “Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: '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.' While I recognise that the signage does not state this, I do not consider that this prevented the appellant from adhering to the terms and conditions of the car park.”

This point which has WON POPLA appeals in its own right was admitted to be an issue but erroneously dismissed by this Assessor as unimportant. This is at odds with all other POPLA decisions seen in the public domain in 2016 on that exact same appeal point. This specific finding erred and is so much at odds with other POPLA decisions that I will bring a formal complaint to ISPA and the BPA if not fairly reviewed by another Assessor or the Lead Adjudicator, due to the unfairness and inconsistency of dismissing an appeal point which has won POPLA appeals v ParkingEye several times recently.

For consistency, the decision should have been that the appeal was upheld in my favour because the Assessor has admitted that the signs DO NOT say 'what the ANPR data will be used for'.

2. Assessor quotes: "The British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected is accurate."

The parking operator has failed to provide the up to date audit or history of this in their evidence.
Also, the assessor’s statement “Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate” is not proof that this particular system being operated in this particular car park is accurate and in good working order. The burden of proof is with the parking operator to prove the accuracy of their system, and not with the appellant to prove the inaccuracy of it.

3. As per my entitlement under the Freedom of Information Act, I demand to view the contract between land owner and Parking Eye.
Also, in the case of First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (IPSA v Information Commissioner (EA/2012/0242)).
"The Commissioner recognised that FOIA is drafted so
as to provide a right to information rather than
documents. FOIA requires, however, that (subject to
exemptions) the public authority communicate all of the
information within the scope of a request. In most cases
involving requests for copies of particular documents,
this obligation is to be met by disclosing copies of the
actual documents. In other words, extracts or
transcripts will often not capture all of the recorded
information contained in the relevant document."

Furthermore, it is Department of Health policy that NHS standard contracts should be used with parking operators. If they have not used a standard NHS contract, I demand to know why and on whose authority.

4. The assessor has misapplied the Beavis case. The judgement and the Appeal Court judgement before it explicitly EXCLUDES pay-per-hour type car parks.

Based on these points, I request that my case be re-assessed.

Regards
xxxxxxx
Registered Keeper

steve1500

C4WRX wrote: »

Ok,here is a draft of my letter to send to POPLA. Let me know your thoughts and what I can do to improve it:


POPLA CODE: XXXXXXXXXX



3. As per my entitlement under the Freedom of Information Act, I demand to view the contract between land owner and Parking Eye.
Also, in the case of First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (IPSA v Information Commissioner (EA/2012/0242)).
"The Commissioner recognised that FOIA is drafted so
as to provide a right to information rather than
documents. FOIA requires, however, that (subject to
exemptions) the public authority communicate all of the
information within the scope of a request. In most cases
involving requests for copies of particular documents,
this obligation is to be met by disclosing copies of the
actual documents. In other words, extracts or
transcripts will often not capture all of the recorded
information contained in the relevant document."

Furthermore, it is Department of Health policy that NHS standard contracts should be used with parking operators. If they have not used a standard NHS contract, I demand to know why and on whose authority.


xxxxxxx
Registered Keeper

This bit needs to be addressed to the hospital in question, POPLA are not subject to FoI -something like this should do the trick. For the address just google FoI and the name of the hospital


Dear FoI


Please supply me with a copy of the contract you have with Parking Eye

If you have not used the NHS Standard Contract ( Supply of Goods & Provision of Services March 2015) The document/ minutes of the meeting, where it was approved, that a different contract may be used

Reports produced stating & evidence produced that Parking Eye are complying with the Terms & Condition's of the contract.

If no reports or evidence have been produced. Then any document held that provides assurance that the T &C's of the contract have been met.

Coupon-mad

I would honestly only complain about point 1 (and maybe 4 but that's hopeless) . I'd go only for the first point and keep it short and to the point with the quote you provided. You need a short complaint about the bigger issue of error and an assertive introduction. So not:

To Whom It May Concern,

I appealed a parking charge notice as registered keeper of vehicle reg XXXX XXX.
A decision was made by POPLA that my appeal was unsuccessful.
I wish for my case to be re-assessed for the following reasons:

instead:


FORMAL COMPLAINT - POPLA CODE XXXXXXXXXX - ERRONEOUS DECISION INCONSISTENT WITH RECENT POPLA DECISIONS

Dear POPLA,

I have a formal complaint and respectfully require the matter is escalated to the Lead Adjudicator. My complaint is that the Assessor has made a finding of fact about there being no signs saying how the ANPR data will be used - but then misapplied it/dismissed it as unimportant. As the lack of such signs is a BPA CoP and ICO breach and has been the single winning point in a number of recent POPLA decisions, to find the same issue wrongly dismissed by this Assessor is inconsistent and unfair to myself as a consumer appellant.

At the very least, POPLA must strive for consistency in decisions and I ask that the conclusion quoted below is urgently reviewed. Time is of the essence because ParkingEye sue consumers and this error has caused me serious distress.

To be clear, the Assessor has erred after making a finding of fact. Specifically:

1.The assessor quoted: {then the rest of your point #1}




I would delete this and bear in mind anyway that you cannot use FOI against private firms:

2. Assessor quotes: "The British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected is accurate."

The parking operator has failed to provide the up to date audit or history of this in their evidence.
Also, the assessor’s statement “Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate” is not proof that this particular system being operated in this particular car park is accurate and in good working order. The burden of proof is with the parking operator to prove the accuracy of their system, and not with the appellant to prove the inaccuracy of it.

3. As per my entitlement under the Freedom of Information Act, I demand to view the contract between land owner and Parking Eye.
Also, in the case of First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (IPSA v Information Commissioner (EA/2012/0242)).
"The Commissioner recognised that FOIA is drafted so
as to provide a right to information rather than
documents. FOIA requires, however, that (subject to
exemptions) the public authority communicate all of the
information within the scope of a request. In most cases
involving requests for copies of particular documents,
this obligation is to be met by disclosing copies of the
actual documents. In other words, extracts or
transcripts will often not capture all of the recorded
information contained in the relevant document."

Furthermore, it is Department of Health policy that NHS standard contracts should be used with parking operators. If they have not used a standard NHS contract, I demand to know why and on whose authority.

C4WRX

Hi all.
I am awaiting a response from FOI regarding the contract with Parking Eye, but they have acknowledged receipt of my email.

I have had a response from POPLA. It seems to be the same amateur that assessed my case originally that has responded yet again. She hasn't even bothered to escalate it as I had requested.

Here is her response:

Thank you for your email received on 25 March 2016.

I note your complaint with regards to the signage not informing motorists what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is used for.

While I recognise that the signage does not state this, as you have not made payment to park, I cannot consider this as a ground for appeal, as it has not had an impact on your ability to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park.

With regards to other POPLA cases being allowed on this basis, each case is dealt with individually, therefore, the outcome of each decision will vary.

While we note you are unhappy with our decision, we have now reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.

For further independent and impartial advice, please contact the Citizens Advice Bureau on 03454 040 506 or at citizensadvice

Yours sincerely,

Carly Law

POPLA Team

So what is my next course of action?