FlashPark ticket

rox

Hi,


I received a flashpark ticket on 22/4/16, the thing is the contravention was on 7/4 and the date of notice is 13/4, which i dont understand as i received the letter 9 days later. I have done an appeal before and won with a different company, so know a little but not sure if i have gone past the deadline according to their dates on the PCN. I want to reply back to it with the following appeal, as far as i can tell they have no online appeal form and i will have to post this to them, should i send it recorded delivery if this is the case?

"MY ADDRESS
DATE

Dear Sirs,

Re: PCN No. XXXXXXX

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

MY name"

thanks in advance

Redx

NEVER send it "signed for", or they can and probably will refuse receipt

go to the PO counter staff and ask for a free certificate of posting, keep it safe

the template appeal is fine, dont alter it at all, just add pcn number and name and address only, the signature can be a "squiggle"

rox

Hi all,

Ok so I have received my POPLA code from flashpark.

Just worried that in the letter they are stating that the car park is permit holders only when in fact it is a majestic wine car park. So is also for customers of the shop but this is not stated, can i mention this point somehow, or should i leave it

[FONT=&quot]Thanks again,


Dear Sir or Madam,

Ticket number: xxxxx

Vehicle registration number: xxxxx

POPLA appeal code XXXXXX

I write to lodge my appeal to POPLA regarding the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Flashpark as a Notice to Keeper in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at “place” on "day" "month" 2016. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s keeper for the purposes of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

When I initially raised my dispute with Flashpark, I took great care to explain why it had no valid claim and I was therefore very disappointed to receive from Flashpark a rejection letter that was very clearly a standard template.

I set out below the principal reasons why I am not liable for this parking charge”.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]On the “date” I received a PCN in the post for an alleged contravention with a contravention date of “date”. The vehicle in question is described as parking in an area for permit holders only without a permit displayed.

The date of the PCN was labelled as “date” with an outstanding amount of £85 which would be reduced to £55 if it was paid within 14 days.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Not given the full 28 days to appeal the fine by flashpark[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £85.
5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that Flashpark provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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. Not given the full 28 days to appeal the fine by flashpark[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After checking parkingcowboys website I discovered that Flashpark hasn’t given me my full 28 days to appeal, it states they have only given me 27 days.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
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. In the absence of such title, Flashpark must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Flashpark to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Flashpark and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Flashpark.

4) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver
The only signs are up on poles and small, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. Any upright signs were not so prominent among all the other signage on site that they were ever seen by the occupants of the car. I believe that Flashpark place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a torch, to try to read them. Any photos supplied by Flashpark to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the Flashpark signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this busy customer car park. As such, I require Flashpark to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day without photoshopping or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among a myriad of other information bombarding a customer.

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.

5. Not a genuine pre estimate of loss - case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis Unfair term

In its parking charge notice, Flashpark has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £85 loss the landowner might have incurred for the alleged contravention.
The contract entered into between the driver and Flashpark is a simple consumer contract. An offer of parking if the driver enters their registration number and pays a tariff.

This makes plain that the sum of £85 being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors, and is consequently unenforceable.

As this is a simple contract, any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.!

If Flashpark believe that inadequate payment was made, their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. £85 is quite clearly not a genuine pre estimate of their loss and is clearly extravagant and unconscionable compared to the supposed parking tariff. If Flashparke believe their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of this. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.!

I would refer the POPLA adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye v Barry Beavis. In that situation 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 places.

This car park is no different to any other commercial enterprise. There can be no argument of commercial justification allowing what would otherwise be a clear penalty, simply because a small admin error was made when the vehicle would otherwise have been welcome to park as it did.

A contractual term which imposes the requirement to pay a disproportionately large sum for failing to carry out an admin task is the very essence of an unlawful penalty. Analysis of paragraphs 43-51 from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the Court of Appeal would have considered the charge in this case as an unenforceable penalty. This case can be clearly distinguished from that of ParkingEye v Beavis the judgment in which is irrelevant in this situation.

Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in that case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility . As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.

6. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera

Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require Flashpark 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. 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 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.

Furthermore, as described in the BPA Code of Practice under paragraph 21.1, “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.”

Additionally, expanding from point 2 above, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

Considering the observations made in point 2 (Ambiguous, inadequate and non-compliant signage) above, I argue that Flashpark has failed to meet the minimum standards set out in sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. While the available sign advises that the “car park (is) monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras” for, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice nor is it therefore “easy to understand”, as required under Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours Failthfully

xxxx

Any advice please on what i should add or take away.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks in advance[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BR
[/FONT]

Redx

you have called it a "fine" , its an invoice , or parking charge , definitely NOT a fine and not a penalty either

you have missed 6) from your bullet points

Coupon-mad

Point #2 doesn't assist you so get rid, no-one cares (it won't help you win, so bin it!) and POPLA allow you just a bit longer than 28 days anyway so it's swings & roundabouts. You have your 28 days anyway.

I would change it to a point about breach of the BPA CoP on discounts, if this is true:

The date of the PCN was labelled as “date” with an outstanding amount of £85 which would be reduced to £55 if it was paid within 14 days.

Find the part in the BPA CoP which says a charge must be discounted by at least 40% which I think is still in the CoP. Quote that as your point #2 instead and say that the charge was 'not properly given' in view of a very clear breach of basic charge amounts set out by the BPA. State that compliance with this Code was considered to be 'a form of regulation' in ParkingEye v Beavis.

Get rid of anything with the phrase 'no GPEOL' or 'unfair term' (POPLA will swing either of those terms in favour of the PPC because of the Beavis case):

5. [STRIKE]Not a genuine pre estimate of loss -[/STRIKE] This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [STRIKE]Unfair term[/STRIKE]




Can you tell us what the background to this charge was?

A few minutes (within the BPA Grace Periods?) without buying a ticket?

Bought a ticket but overstayed?

Bought a ticket but put in the wrong car registration?

rox

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you tell us what the background to this charge was?

A few minutes (within the BPA Grace Periods?) without buying a ticket?

Bought a ticket but overstayed?

Bought a ticket but put in the wrong car registration?

I own a business around the corner from this majestic wine and my wife had parked there a number of times in the month, sometimes for 10 minutes sometimes for a couple of hours as there was no other spaces, I always told her never to park in there as there were signs but she had never got a ticket. I think flashpark took over and as far as i can see no CCTV in the actual car park. I think the staff take the pictures as poor quality and looks like its taken from inside of the shop.

The car park doesnt actually have a meter, it is for customers and permit holders only. But on the actual PCN just states it is a "permit holders only car park" but in reality customers park free.

Thanks in advance

BR

Redx

cctv isnt allowed for checking private parking

its either anpr cameras or a windscreen ticket

in some cases the PPC back this up using handheld cameras , like UKPC for example

forget about cctv, its not relevant

fisherjim

rox wrote: »

I own a business around the corner from this majestic wine and my wife had parked there a number of times in the month, sometimes for 10 minutes sometimes for a couple of hours as there was no other spaces, I always told her never to park in there as there were signs but she had never got a ticket. I think flashpark took over and as far as i can see no CCTV in the actual car park. I think the staff take the pictures as poor quality and looks like its taken from inside of the shop.

The car park doesnt actually have a meter, it is for customers and permit holders only. But on the actual PCN just states it is a "permit holders only car park" but in reality customers park free.

Thanks in advance

BR

Flashpark haven't taken over, there is no CCTV or even ANPR.
Flashpark is owned by a Muppet that invented "The Talking Parking Ticket" so you can imaging how professional they are!

This is a self ticketing outfit and about as unregulated and amatuerish as you can get:

The advantages of FlashPark's online service:

1. We get the evidence of the offence instantly (no postal delays)
2. A digital photo of the vehicle in its offending position is all the evidence we need
3. Free service to landowner and a £15 commission for every paid parking charge notice - if you have at least nine paid parking charge notices in a calendar month (terms & conditions apply)
4. As a landowner you only have to sign up once. You can then register as many sites with us as you want, which can be anywhere in the UK
5. A parking charge notice takes seconds to issue
6. No confrontation
7. The landowner can cancel a ticket
8. Drivers can view, pay and appeal the parking charge online

What does it cost?

FlashPark is a free service to use. We get our income when we recover parking charges and by renting out our warning signs.

https://www.flashpark.co.uk/HowItWorks.aspx

https://www.flashpark.co.uk/private-parking-tickets/talking.php

Coupon-mad

''The landowner can cancel a ticket'' ...and lose their share of the spoils, but then again if it's a person who is never going to pay, like you, there will be no money so they may as well cancel it.

So...which of your business' neighbours is the curtain twitching jobsworth who likes to think they have power over the car park? You/your wife could stand and watch or even leave a car as bait, then confront the person taking the photo, not hysterically but in an assertive way to ask why they've signed up to a protection racket, is it just the money they get or the power too?

beamerguy

Clearly as Rox says, pictures are being taken by the mini scam brigade who gets paid commission.

Last year I suggested that in a mini Tesco car park, pictures were taken by their staff. Tesco denied this and got the ticket cancelled.
Clearly caught out

The FlashPark web site is odd, despite them praising "talking tickets"
which probably should be in "toysRus"

HOW IT WORKS:
They say in step 6 .... a £10 cashback for each PCN paid
They say in their FAQ's ...
Q: Does Flashpark pay commission?
A. No. It is now an industry standard that we are not allowed to pay commission on tickets. This came into effect on 1st October 2015. See the BPA Code of Practice.

Commission or cashback .... same thing.

And again in their FAQ's they state ...
Q: How can I deal with a repeat offender?
Stick one of our difficult to remove self adhesive warning stickers on their windscreen. They take 30 minutes, hot soapy water and a lot of effort to remove so are very effective at deterring repeat offenders.

It is unclear how legal this is as it is defacing your property.

A few years ago, I parked outside my shop on double yellows and got a ticket of course, that was not the problem, it was the fact that the ticket left an area of
glue. This was when the police controlled traffic wardens, I knew the local Chief Super and he got the traffic warden to clean my windscreen.
Great comments from passing people, never saw that warden again

Maybe the BPA should carefully review FlashPark and the tricks they play

rox

[FONT=&quot]Thanks for all y[FONT=&quot]our help guys, I have redrafted the letter, think i have got everything in there i need;

[FONT=&quot]Could you please check all is ok before i upload to POPLA[FONT=&quot] website[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Dear Sir or Madam,

Ticket number: xxxxx

Vehicle registration number: xxxxx

POPLA appeal code XXXXXX

I write to lodge my appeal to POPLA regarding the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Flashpark as a Notice to Keeper in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at “place” on "day" "month" 2016. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s keeper for the purposes of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

When I initially raised my dispute with Flashpark, I took great care to explain why it had no valid claim and I was therefore very disappointed to receive from Flashpark a rejection letter that was very clearly a standard template.

I set out below the principal reasons why I am not liable for this parking charge”.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]On the “date” I received a PCN in the post for an alleged contravention with a contravention date of “date”. The vehicle in question is described as parking in an area for permit holders only without a permit displayed.

The date of the PCN was labelled as “date” with an outstanding amount of £85 which would be reduced to £55 if it was paid within 14 days.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

4. The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £85.

5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that Flashpark provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The [FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot]riginal [FONT=&quot]PCN co[FONT=&quot]st [FONT=&quot]is £85 with a reduction [FONT=&quot]to £55 if paid within 14 days this [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]should be at least 40% of the full charge under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.[/FONT]Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

The charge was 'not properly given' in view of a very clear breach of basic charge amounts set out by the BPA. Compliance with this Code was considered to be 'a form of regulation' in ParkingEye v Beavis.
[FONT=&quot]
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. In the absence of such title, Flashpark must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Flashpark to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Flashpark and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Flashpark.

4[FONT=&quot].[/FONT] The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver
The only signs are up on poles and small, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. Any upright signs were not so prominent among all the other signage on site that they were ever seen by the occupants of the car. I believe that Flashpark place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a torch, to try to read them. Any photos supplied by Flashpark to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the Flashpark signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this busy customer car park. As such, I require Flashpark to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day without photoshopping or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among a myriad of other information bombarding a customer.

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.

5. [FONT=&quot]C[/FONT]ase can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis

In its parking charge notice, Flashpark has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £85 loss the landowner might have incurred for the alleged contravention.
The contract entered into between the driver and Flashpark is a simple consumer contract. An offer of parking if the driver enters their registration number and pays a tariff.

This makes plain that the sum of £85 being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors, and is consequently unenforceable.

As this is a simple contract, any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.!

If Flashpark believe that inadequate payment was made, their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. £85 is quite clearly not a genuine pre estimate of their loss and is clearly extravagant and unconscionable compared to the supposed parking tariff. If Flashparke believe their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of this. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.!

I would refer the POPLA adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye v Barry Beavis. In that situation 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 places.

This car park is no different to any other commercial enterprise. There can be no argument of commercial justification allowing what would otherwise be a clear penalty, simply because a small admin error was made when the vehicle would otherwise have been welcome to park as it did.

A contractual term which imposes the requirement to pay a disproportionately large sum for failing to carry out an admin task is the very essence of an unlawful penalty. Analysis of paragraphs 43-51 from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the Court of Appeal would have considered the charge in this case as an unenforceable penalty. This case can be clearly distinguished from that of ParkingEye v Beavis the judgment in which is irrelevant in this situation.

Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in that case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility . As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.

6. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera

Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require Flashpark 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. 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 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.

Furthermore, as described in the BPA Code of Practice under paragraph 21.1, “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.”

Additionally, expanding from point 2 above, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

Considering the observations made in point 2 (Ambiguous, inadequate and non-compliant signage) above, I argue that Flashpark has failed to meet the minimum standards set out in sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. While the available sign advises that the “car park (is) monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras” for, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice nor is it therefore “easy to understand”, as required under Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours Failthfully

xxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks in advance [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BR[/FONT]