ParkingEye initial appeal submission

PCN_advice_needed

Morning all. I've received a PCN from ParkingEye. I'm planning an online appeal as follows below - anyone got any pointers to improve it ? I understand at least I'll get a POPLA number.

I've also used elements from a Pepipoo post (thread 83803, if anyone's interested - I can't post the link).

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

Thank you for your correspondence of xxxxx, requesting the name of the driver of vehicle xxxxxxx ("the vehicle") between xxxxxx and yyyyyy on zzzzzz.

Having considered your request, I have decided to decline to offer you the details of the driver. The reasons for this are detailed below:

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

In your correspondence, you allege that the driver of the vehicle "exceeded free parking duration at [location]". You then go on to state that "the terms and conditions of the car park are clearly displayed on signs in prominent places".

Unfortunately, you have provided no evidence of these. Two photographs of the vehicle are provided, however neither show it definitively in the location you allege. Furthermore, without a copy of the "terms and conditions" you claim exist, I am not satisfied the driver breached them.

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 required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. You have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

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.

Quentin

Read up the newbies FAQ thread at top of the forum.

Then send the blue type appeal youll find there.

Half_way

As above, read the newbies thread.
However why just trouble POPLA when you can kick up a real stick with the landowner?
After all the landowner is jointly and severely liable for the actions of their agents, and in most cases they will have taken on a PPC in the belief that the PPC will offer trouble free so called management of their car park at no cost to the landowner

PCN_advice_needed

I read that thread, and used the blue as a template then added in the other bits. Do my additions invalidate the letter, or add to it ? I suppose I should have asked that in the first place...

And POPLA is mentioned in the blue text.

Quentin

The blue template is tried and tested. Alter it at your own risk


You kick up a fuss with the landowner in tandem with following the timescales in the newbies FAQ

PCN_advice_needed

I've had a response from PE. I'm also putting together a POPLA appeal using the template (modified to my circumstances) found in a thread titled "APCOA parking notice" from 20th September 2016, but I can't post a link to the thread or post as I'm still a new member...

I'm intending to use the "amount as a penalty", "misleading and unclear signage", "no landowner contract" and "photo evidence appears doctored" (sections 3, 7, 8 and 9)

I think the response covers the requirements (in terms of dates and verbiage) POFA 2012 so is it worth including the section relating to "not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge" (section 6), or can I still use that despite POFA?

Also PE have simply dismissed the appeal without providing any of the information requested in the original appeal - is that worth adding in as well ?

Here's the response from PE, redacted as appropriate:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on <date and time> at <location>.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This site is a maximum stay car park, as per the terms and conditions as detailed on the signage. Your appeal has been rejected on the basis that the maximum time allowed was exceeded. However, as a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. Please be advised:

 There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also <POPLA web site link>

 If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount.

 By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (OMBUDSMAN web site link) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

A payment can be made by..

PCN_advice_needed

Any comments ?

Coupon-mad

Assuming yours is one that mentions keeper liability after 29 days in the blurb on the PCN, then you are right not to query the NTK for POFA compliance - but if it does not mention the POFA and was served after day 14, you would have grounds to appeal on 'liability' basis.

I think the response covers the requirements (in terms of dates and verbiage) POFA 2012 so is it worth including the section relating to "not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge" (section 6), or can I still use that despite POFA?

You could use it just to make the appeal longer which is never a bad thing with PE POPLA appeals, as it seems the longer ones often cause them to bail out. If yours is a 'POFA/keeper liability' PCN though, I would prune the 'individual driver' appeal point to remove the words that talk about the PPC 'unable to rely on the POFA'.

Also PE have simply dismissed the appeal without providing any of the information requested in the original appeal - is that worth adding in as well?

You could mention that at the start in your preamble, as an introduction, again to make it long and detailed.

Do show us your finished draft here.

PCN_advice_needed

Here's the pretty much finished draft - the only quibble I have with my own handiwork is how to phrase section 3, to try to put the onus on the company to prove they have complied with POFA but that even so it's not natural justice

I have also emailed the DFT to get details of whether PE have used DVLA to get details of the RK or whether that ya have used another means.

----DRAFT

POPLA Ref <ref>
Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice no <number>

A notice to keeper was issued on <date> and received by me, the registered keeper of LR53ZTO for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at <location>. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Initial appeal refused as a matter of course without any substantive effort to reply
2) Amount demanded is a penalty
3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
4) Misleading and unclear signage
5) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
6) Photo evidence appears doctored


1) The initial appeal lodged with ParkingEye on 11th December 2016 included a request for information, including a geographical address, about the landowner or business on the site in order to lodge a complaint.

No information was supplied as part of the appeal response, and the appeal response itself appears to be a pro-forma refusal. Were the ParkingEye appel process anything other than a process by which to appear compliant with BPA guidelines then that information would have been provided in good faith as a matter of course. The fact that it has not been provided indicates that the ParkingEye appeal process is perfunctory and essentially useless.

2) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. From my research, using the Internet, into the signage displayed at the East Point Retail Park I do not believe it can be safely read from a moving vehicle. It also appears that a vehicle can be parked in bays which are so far from the nearest sign to the entrance that the signs are illegible, and a driver can enter shops in the retail park without passing remotely close to a sign.


3) In cases with a keeper appellant, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced. Indeed the photographs supplied do not show the driver in any degree of detail, and certainly not to be able to satisfy any reasonable person of the driver’s identity. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator in this case, to show that I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.!

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.!

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
!
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

4) The alleged breach, according to Parking Eye, is in contravention of terms and conditions “clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park”. It would however appear from perusing Google Earth images (the only option available to the appellant at time of appeal) that the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Parking Eye are required to show evidence to the contrary.

5) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking Eye’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Parking Eye Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Parking Eye Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Parking Eye Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking Eye Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Parking Eye Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Eye Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Eye can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

9) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge Parking Eye to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge Parking Eye that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Coupon-mad

It's not very long - i.e. the templates on 'unclear signage' and 'no landowner authority' in the NEWBIES thread post #3 are tens times longer for a reason (and embed your Google Earth/Streetview screenshots into the 'signage' argument to illustrate it within the appeal. Make it like a long story, with pics!

PCN_advice_needed

6 pages, 2877 words, and two piccies ? Here's the latest:

POPLA Ref <ref>
Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice no <number>

A notice to keeper was issued on <date> and received by me, the registered keeper of <vehicle> for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at <location>. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Initial appeal refused as a matter of course without any substantive effort to reply
2) Amount demanded is a penalty
3) Misleading and unclear signage
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
5) Photo evidence appears doctored
6) Untrustworthiness of camera system


1) The initial appeal lodged with ParkingEye on <date> included a request for information, including a geographical address, about the landowner or business on the site in order to lodge a complaint.

No information was supplied as part of the appeal response, and the appeal response itself appears to be a pro-forma refusal. Were the ParkingEye appel process anything other than a process by which to appear compliant with BPA guidelines then that information would have been provided in good faith as a matter of course. The fact that it has not been provided indicates that the ParkingEye appeal process is perfunctory and essentially useless.
2) The charge is a penalty, breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is prohibited/unfair under the CPUTRs. It is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis.

In this case there is no fee payable purely to allow a car to park at the site.

I am of the view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position.!At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment, it was held:
''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 to the innocent party, 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:!“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.” ‘’

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay!the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty… ''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary/standard contracts with a transaction and tariff paid at a machine: ''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''

This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination.! At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.!In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

Clearly a charge ‘out of all proportion’ to the tariff – and in this instance there is no tariff for parking - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man. This is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.!

’’A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations…’’

''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

This charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which does NOT supersede other defences. It turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification. This case is not comparable.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 also supports my position that this commercial practice of charging for their own system failure is unfair:

<link to legislation>

’’Prohibition of unfair commercial practices’’:

3.—
(1)!Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.

(2)!Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair.
(3)!A commercial practice is unfair if—
(a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and
(b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer...
(4)!A commercial practice is unfair if—
(a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5;
(b) it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6;”

I have shown that ParkingEye have failed all of the above tests (my bold) which makes a charge under these circumstances prohibited and unenforceable. The Beavis case established that the penalty rule was certainly deemed ‘engaged’ in parking charge cases. Even if POPLA cannot consider consumer law (whyever not?) then the evidence shows that this charge is the very essence of ‘unconscionable’ which was the Beavis case definition of an unrecoverable penalty.

I believe the charge demanded through this PCN fails this test because there was no charge (therefore no loss).

3) The alleged breach, according to Parking Eye, is in contravention of terms and conditions “clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park”. It would however appear from perusing Google Earth images (the only option available to the appellant at time of appeal) that the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Parking Eye are required to show evidence to the contrary.

The picture of the sign at the entrance, collected from Google Earth, shows a small sign :

<image in document>

The closest sign to the entrance which appears to have any mention of ParkingEye or any charge shown in the image below:

<image in document>

It can be just be seen, approximately 7 clear parking spaces from the hatched area surrounding the two disabled parking spaces in the right foreground. It is therefore possible to park, enter a store and not see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements regarding signage.

<link to legislation>

68 Requirement for transparency (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection!(1)!if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer with no tariff lists which is the primary prominent information on the board.!In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park:-

<link to picture>

As evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:-

<amazon signage link>

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. However, if you…want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:-
<link to ebay image size info>

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters.!Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.! ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''!

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the parking terms should have been simpler and effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear, concise and prominent in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'.

I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when parked. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up.

Separately, I can find no trace of a decided planning application relating to East Point Retail Park for the ParkingEye signage and cameras (the only three relevant results found searching the <local authority> Planning Application Web site relate to PoundLand, Aldi and site totem sign itself – not ParkingEye). The only decided planning applications found relate to signage for the park or individual shops). Assuming that indeed no planning application was submitted or approved, then the signs hold no validity even were they properly sized, properly legible and properly placed.

4) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking Eye’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Parking Eye Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Parking Eye Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Parking Eye Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking Eye Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Parking Eye Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Eye Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Eye can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

5) Photo evidence appears doctored.
I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge Parking Eye to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge Parking Eye that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

6) Untrustworthiness of camera system.
The ANPR system is unreliable!and neither synchronised nor accurate. The BPA code of practice contains the following:

”21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
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.”

Parking Eye fail to operate the system!in a ‘reasonable, consistent and transparent manner’. As Parking Eye place signs too high to see on arrival, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be ‘informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for’.

Parking Eye fails to clearly inform drivers!about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. There is!no evidence!that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to!strict proof!of full ANPR compliance.

In addition I!question the!entire reliability of the system. In the event that Parking Eye issue properly stamped and dated court papers the following should be requested and required:

Parking Eye must 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 a vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this!Operator must produce evidence!in response and explain to POPLA/Court how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the!court loss in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones!on 8 Nov 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.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records,! Parking Eye is required to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. It is contended that in the case of a 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.!The operator appears to use a communications system which introduces a delay through buffering, so!“live” is not really “live”. Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. The contention is that this ANPR “evidence” from the cameras in this car park is just as!unreliable and unsynchronised!as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos,!Parking Eye is put to strict proof!to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised.

As well as being unreliable,!this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera – far from ‘transparent’ – unreasonably ‘farming’ the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and!neither ‘managing, enforcing nor controlling parking’!since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all. This Operator!does not!show!the parking event transparently and truthfully.


I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.