Parking Eye

oneilly

Hope this works

The light you see is for the entrance of the pub and does not or intended to cover the Car park

Carthesis

The first pic is VERY blurry, but does show that there isn't much in the way of either direct or indirect illumination there at all.

Basically, ParkingEye won't give a s**t about that - their contention will be that the signs are there, and that if you drove in then your car has headlights, and everyone can see in the dark, and there was a full moon, and the dog did it, and anyway your psychic powers should have told you what the signs said anyway because look at them - they're very clear and painted in fluorescent paint with letters a mile high and in no way have the been made tiny, confusing, misleading and subsequently placed somewhere you wouldn't possibly see them or think to look for them in the dark in a locale with no lights, nosirree, not us, no way. </sarcasm>

Basically, they won't care about the circumstances or the mitigation. The entire point is to get a POPLA code, where you've more of a chance. Just send off the template letter and keep your powder dry for POPLA.

oneilly

Hi Guys, just had my rejection letter with POPLA code.

The basis of my appeal is that the area was to dark and the signage wasn't visable.

I have revised the area and they have made no attempt to light up the signage or any part of the pub car park.

Does this sound like viable grounds for appeal that could possibly win?

In the letter it says if my appeal is rejected by POPLA I will be liable to pay the undiscounded fine, I'm just wondering what my changes will be.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

oneilly

Below is my draft appeal, comments welcomed, cribbed from others.

Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code:xxxxxxxxx


I am the registered keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice (reference above).
I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and request that they are all considered.

1) No evidence to show that a “first in, last out” has not happened
2) No evidence to show that the APNR system is reliable.
3) Failure of the Private Parking Company to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice
4) Failure to provide the contract to evidence that Parking Eye has any Standing or Authority to pursue charges or form contracts (Locus Standii)
5) The signage was non-compliant with the BPA CoP
6) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
7) Unlawful Penalty Charge


1) No evidence to show that a “first in, last out” has not happened.
ParkingEye has provided to the adjudicator photographs to support their claim of unauthorised use of the carpark. As registered keeper I put it to ParkingEye that they haven't clearly shown evidence that the vehicle was parked up and not just dropping off.

I would further draw your attention to the following

It has been shown in Altrincham County Court (Case 3JD08399) that driving around a carpark does not mean that a car is parked, and as such, an attempt levy a parking charge would not be correct

On the night in question the Vehicle made frequent visits to the Public House/ B&B to drop off family members and ParkingEye have not evidenced that they have not photographed the vehicle entering on one visit and leaving on a second visit.

It is also possible that the problem of system drop-out, which has not been considered, If any one part of the whole system stops working for any period of time, then some images might not be recorded. A car could drive in and out of the car park and not be recorded.

The site in question is also frequented by trades persons driving high sided vehicles and
It is entirely possible that the visits to this site on the day that the APNR system used by ParkingEye simply did not record that the vehicle had left the site as the vehicle was blocked from the camera’s view by a large high vehicle as below example making
“first in, last out” likely.

Reduced: 53% of original size [ 715 x 228 ] - Click to view full image


The APNR system dose not have x-ray capabilities! if a pedestrian crosses the path or a vehicle drives close to the one in front then the camera will never see the number plate at all.

Given above, ParkingEye have clearly not shown that the vehicle was parked in the car park for the duration of the alleged incident, I therefore request that you uphold my appeal as they cannot show that the vehicle was parked for the duration or that a “first in, last out” has not happened. Without evidence that the vehicle was parked for the duration there can be no case.


2) No evidence to show that the APNR system is reliable.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator 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 this Operator must 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 form 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.
ParkingEye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.

3) Failure of the Private Parking Company to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice
In direct contravention of Clause 22.8 of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice, to which ParkingEye must abide, states that members of the BOA must “acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it". The initial appeal was lodged on ParkingEye’s online system on 02/11/16. ParkingEye's response was not received until the 17/11/16, so failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA e.g. delivering notices to keeper within 14 days. as such the Keeper appellant has no liability in law, and the appeal must succeed on this point alone.


4) Failure to provide the contract to evidence that Parking Eye has any Standing or Authority to pursue charges or form contracts (Locus Standii)
ParkingEye has not produced any evidence to show that they have any legal right to issue charges on behalf of the landowner. They have provided a witness statement but not any of the requested detail to show detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). There is also no proof that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. It is my contention that this witness statement should be disregarded as unreliable, not proving full BPA compliance and is not sufficient to prove that Parking Eye have the necessary legal standing at this location to bring a claim in their own name nor to form any contractual relationship between the landowner and motorists.

I also refer to the fact that the “old” POPLA service ALWAYS found in favour of the appellant where the PPC had not proved that they had the authority of the landowner, in accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Please note that this practice included disregarding any evidence not shown to an appellant, so the operator cannot add it now for consideration. The Operator has not shown a full unredacted copy of the contract that allows them to act (as detailed above).

For clarity, the BPA Code clearly states that
“The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement”

ParkingEye has not provided the adjudicator any evidence to show that they have authority to issue charges in line with the BPA Code. The Operators evidence fails to show any of the BPA requirements then the omissions must be interpreted in the way which favours the consumer. I request that you uphold my appeal on this point.

In addition, I refer to POPLA case reference 1771073004 where the assessor ruled that a witness statement was not valid. This witness statement, based on the template provided by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator, concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. This is exactly analogous to the current case if the operator produces a witness statement regarding contract documents between he operator and the landowner; the alleged contract is a document which the operator could produce (if it exists) but chooses not to. I request therefore that the “new” POPLA is consistent with the “old” POPLA scheme in its processes and also rules any witness statement produced by the operator invalid.

5) The signage was non-compliant with the BPA CoP
The signage is, I believe, non-compliant. The signs are badly placed, full of overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand in daylight and invisible at night.

Enclosed is a photo taken at the same time of day as ParkingEye use within their claim, as the photo demonstrates no signage is visable.

Reduced: 60% of original size [ 640 x 480 ] - Click to view full image




Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera & flash and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs in the dark without the aid of flash photography. 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.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms ParkingEye are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice 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]

6) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's ApprovedOperator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator 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 this Operator must 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 form 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 the Operator 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 this Operator in this car park is unreliable I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

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. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA CoP breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

The charge is founded entirely on two photos of the vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times. I put ParkingEye to strict proof that their ANPR system is not fundamentally flawed because of known issues such as missing checks and maintenance of the timer/cameras and the possibility of two visits being recorded as one. The Operator's proof must show checks relating to the vehicle, not vague statements about any maintenance checks carried out at other times.

The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue: http://www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR-work. The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

Since I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. ParkingEye show no parking photographs so they cannot say for certain that the car was not involved in non-parking related activity - e.g. queuing following drop off nor can they show the car did not leave the site and return.

In addition, 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.''
ParkingEye fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'.

7) Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OB Services v Thurlow(review, February 2011), ParkingEye v Smith (Manchester County Court December2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “PARKINGCHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council

Guys_Dad

You could ask the PPC to indicate on a site plan where the signs were and where lighting is. May help your "too dark" point.

Your last point is unfinished but, in my view, a waste of time in its form following Beavis.

I would rewrite para 6 and perhaps include some other examples of double dipping - check Parking Prankster's blogspots.
I would write

ANPR cameras are not 100% foolproof as can be shown in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form 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. Further examples include .....[enter examples]

I think it perfectly reasonable, therefore, to ask Parking Eye to produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's ApprovedOperator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator 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.

The rest of (6) seems to me to be overlong but just my opinion. And your point (1) is easily dealt with "We have checked and can confirm this did not happen. Is appellant claiming that there was more than one visit?"

oneilly

Thank you for taking the time to read and review.

Points noted,

Yes the appellant is claiming muiltible in out visits dropping off to the public house that this carpark serves

Thanks again.

Brooker_Dave

Don't forget to give Marstons as many 1 star reviews as possible, companies that collaborate with Parking Eye to cheat their customers need to be put out of business.

Guys_Dad

oneilly wrote: »

Thank you for taking the time to read and review.

Points noted,

Yes the appellant is claiming muiltible in out visits dropping off to the public house that this carpark serves

Thanks again.

Then I suggest you say so and, if possible, say why.

Coupon-mad

I agree with Guy's Dad and have NO IDEA where people keep dredging up that useless old point headed 'Unlawful Penalty charge' from! It was rubbish before Beavis let alone now in 2016, so remove #7. I wish there was a way we could stop people from finding that from some old appeal, as it keeps coming up and we keep saying to delete it, but no doubt some people are just using it, which doesn't help them.

You have too much about ANPR, no need for three points (#1, #2 and #6) nor anything like that much about ANPR. POPLA cases have never been won on ANPR issues anyway because appellants can't prove the allegations about the system being unreliable. Your appeal reads as though you've copied the bulk of it from an old one.

That's why the template POPLA appeal points in the NEWBIES thread do NOT include one about ANPR, because IMHO it's nigh on pointless, except to say that there were no signs stating what the ANPR data would be used for/that the car was being timed from the moment of arrival.

Signage MUST be your point #1, with your photos embedded in there to illustrate how dark/unlit the driver says it was. You can bet PE will supply loads of signage pics so you must go to town on the DARK signage pictures, really hammer home that point.

This bit makes no sense because 'replying to an appeal' is not in the POFA and you can't say the appellant has no liability in law just because the response to appeal arrived on day 15. In fact you have missed the point that PE acknowledge online appeals IMMEDIATELY within seconds, as you press 'submit' up comes the auto-receipt acknowledgement, so your point #3 needs removing entirely because this is not right:

The initial appeal was lodged on ParkingEye’s online system on 02/11/16. ParkingEye's response was not received until the 17/11/16, so failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA e.g. delivering notices to keeper within 14 days. as such the Keeper appellant has no liability in law, and the appeal must succeed on this point alone.

Redx

as above , POFA 2012 does not apply to the appeal time , only the "rules" in the BPA CoP which they do not enforce anyway

14 days to acknowledge , 35 days to make a decision, nothing to do with POFA

they had 14 days to get an NTK to the keeper following an ANPR incident in order to adhere to POFA, they usually do this (but not always)

and the BEAVIS case at the Supreme Court 12 months ago kicked out the "penalty charge" , so do some BEAVIS research to ensure you are factual and up to date