Minster Baywatch/POPLA appeal

CaroM

Hi all,

I received a NTK through the post from Minster Baywatch as my car passed an ANPR camera 10 minutes after it should have (outrageous behaviour I know!). To cut a long story short, after getting the British Parking Association to force Minster to give me the POPLA code, I'm ready to make an appeal. On the advice of the BMPA, they've asked me to post my appeal here for you guys to give feedback on. I've pinched bits that I think are relevant from other posts on here - my basic argument is that they haven't allowed the minimum grace period as per the BPA's Code of Practice.

Thanks!


The standard grace periods have not been observed
As per the Notice to Keeper issued by Minster Baywatch, the time of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park was recorded as being 08:25 and 12:42. The dashboard parking ticket bought on the day recorded an expiry time of 12:32, with £3.60 having been paid into the machine (above the amount required for parking for 4 hours on the site, however the machine did not extend the ticket time). The vehicle is shown to be attempting to depart the car park still within the grace period required by the British Parking Association's Code of Practice paragraph 13.4 which states:
"the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes".

The signage was non-compliant with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice
The signage was, I believe, non-compliant. The signs were badly placed for a car park with approximately 70 spaces, and used a barely legible size of small print. The signs in this car park were very hard to read and understand. Since the Notice to Keeper ticket was issued, the signage has been altered but is still non-compliant in my opinion.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA CoP which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. Nothing about Minster Baywatch's charges for breaching its terms and conditions 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.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Minster Baywatch are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand - photographic evidence taken by myself on 13 September 2016 is included. I request that POPLA check Minster Baywatch's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA CoP requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity and frequency) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v MartinCutts, 2011, and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2].

The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
The charge is founded entirely on two photos of the vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times. Minster Baywatch is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA CoP. I require Minster Baywatch to 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 the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that Minster Baywatch produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the Operator could not rebut the point.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Minster Baywatch in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of the vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from Minster Baywatch in this car park is unreliable.

I also claim that the signs at the car park do not clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The BPA CoP contains the following in paragraph 21:
''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.''

Minster Baywatch fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'.


I have already had to contact the British Parking Association in regards to this Notice to Keeper from Minster Baywatch, as although I followed their instructions for submitting an appeal and requesting a code to get this matter adjudicated by POPLA, they attempted to subvert the process by not accepting my initial appeal as being such, and then did not follow their own internal policy as outlined by them in their letters or that of the BPA's CoP.

Umkomaas

There are some very recently developed, near-template appeal wording to cover the main points an appeal should include. Do have a look at these links. Grace Period isn't covered, so you need to leave that in (as per your draft above).

Do check that each makes sense in the context of your particular parking event, and adjust if necessary.

Signage

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341

Driver Liability

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342

Landowner Authority

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287628&postcount=2343

No Keeper Liability (windscreen ticket, no follow on NtK)

Example for cases where the PPC issued only a windscreen PCN but did not follow it with a NTK:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287643&postcount=2345

Returning to 'Grace Periods', I think you need to expand this in the context that the BPA CoP provides for a 'reasonable' grace period on entering the car park, to find a spot, go to the signs, read and digest them, decide if you're going to stay, pay at the machine (if appropriate) or decide to leave. Then there is a grace period of 'at least' 10 minutes to leave the car park at the end of parking.

You need to make more of the fact that the ANPR camera only times entry and exit; it doesn't record any period of actual parking - so in fact even more latitude should be allowed to accommodate this period of 'non parking'.

HTH

Fruitcake

Normally you would also have Not the landowner, No standing to issue charges in their own name, as well as non POFA 2012 compliant NTK in a PoPLA appeal.

Do the signs state that ANPR cameras are being used, and do they state what the data will be used for? Both are BPA requirements, and the latter is also a breach of ICO regulations if not included.

Were there any premium rate 'phone numbers on the signs (0845, 0870 etcetera) and were there any additional charges for use of credit/debit cards quoted?

All of the above need to be in your appeal explaining how the signs/NTK failed the BPA CoP or POFA 2012.

AS mentioned, there are two grace periods. Did you have trouble finding a space and have to drive round looking for one? Were you delayed in leaving by things beyond your control such as heavy traffic, pedestrians, lorries turning? Don't lie, but do mention any delay as driving around isn't parking.

Coupon-mad

Did you admit who was driving in the first appeal?

If not then you can use all the (very deliberately long) template examples shown by Umkomaas above.

If yes, then you can't use the 'driver liability' nor 'no keeper liability' which is a shame.

Signage is normally pants with MB! And you can use the other points which are longer than you have there in your first post. Long POPLA appeals are a deliberate ploy to (hopefully) stop a PPC bothering to contest as it's too complicated & will take up too many man-hours to fight a POPLA appeal which has a fair chance of winning for the appellant. So, many PPCs throw in the towel when they see a strong appeal. I hope you didn't give away the driver...

CaroM

Thanks to all for the input:
Umkomaas, I'll have a look at the links and cherry pick as applicable. It's phrasing the argument that's the tricky part!

Fruitcake, ironically the parking charge is £3.50 but the machine doesn't accept 5p or 10p coins! I dare say, having to find change or wait for someone else to show up is a very relevant argument in this case as the nearest shop is 5mins walk away?

Coupon-mad, my initial letter back to MB was very telling as to who was driving but I resisted hitting print and did some research instead. They are not aware of who was driving the vehicle, only that it's mine (thanks to the DVLA dobbing me in).

Coupon-mad

Great to hear no driver was implied!

You can use the templates verbatim; they've been written in a deliberately detailed but generic way.