Ncp anpr

Guys_Dad

You seem to want us to do the work of a layer but for free. Your OP seemed to show that you were on the ball, but things seem to have gone downhill.

Please read the last 2 or 3 pages from the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread at the top of the forum and adapt a winning appeal from there.

Remember, if you have broken their t&c, then you need to dismantle their case by showing that in some way they have failed to create a contract. The POPLA DECISIONS thread has lots of examples, so use the same appeal points, but be sure to provide evidence of their failures.

Redx

to clarify

the NEWBIES sticky thread posts 1 to 4 and 9 (think its 9) deal with all aspects of these private parking invoices and appeals

you started with post #1 and used the blue text template to NCP (stage 1)

this was refused by NCP and a popla code issued

there is no further communication with NCP

you have a popla code so you draft and submit a popla appeal to POPLA (stage 2)

there are NO templates on this forum for any POPLA appeals

there ARE examples of what others have drafted or adapted before you

you must adapt one of those for your own use (recommended), OR you start from scratch and develop your own popla appeal (not recommended)

once it is drafted you can post it on here for critique (no personal info , no VRM , no popla ref at this stage)

when it is approved for submission to POPLA you add the personal details required, like pcn ref , popla ref , VRM , name and address etc

you then save it as a final pdf file to be uploaded

you go to the popla website and upload the pdf and put see attached appeal, choosing OTHER

post #3 of that NEWBIES sticky thread deals with this second stage



now having read the above, where is the confusion ? (its all in that newbies thread)

if you dont like or cannot find examples for your own appeal , tough **** , you gotta adapt the nearest one, ie:- do some work

hope that explains it all ?

ps:- there are hundreds if not thousands of posts about not being the driver , its all the ones that reference POFA2012 and how a PPC has failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper

if they have adhered to POFA2012, then not being the driver is irrelevant

KeithP

greg2424 wrote: »

Assuming the advice was to edit my OP, I have gone ahead and done that.... Although I'm not sure exactly what this achieves other than the possibility that authorities trawl this forum looking for evidence.....?

The private parking companies certainly do 'trawl this forum looking for evidence', but I'm not sure they can be described as 'authorities'.

Coupon-mad

The main issue I am having is trying to determine what I now send to NCP (or POPLA?) and whether there is a template I can use for that?

POPLA - yes, template appeal points are those in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. You could literally throw 4 of those templates together and show us, as a starter for ten!

Or copy and adapt another NCP POPLA appeal that's close enough...one that talks about 'no keeper liability' and edit it for your own case.

I only have until the 9th to pay the £60, so would rather pay that sooner rather than later if I'm unlikely to win.

You'd be the first - a keeper would have to try very hard to lose this.

greg2424

What do we think of this?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Reference number [xxxxxxx]! Vehicle registration: [xxxxxxxx]

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from NCP.

My appeal to NCP was rejected and they gave me POPLA code [xxxxxxxxx].

The basis of my appeal is: Unreasonable/Unfair Terms & The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:

’18.1.3 Objections are less likely…if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. An unlit sign of terms placed too high to read, is far from ‘transparent’.
Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.” Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer”.

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: “A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

NCP's ANPR records show no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that afternoon. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of ‘parking time’ as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of ‘parking time’ at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event that afternoon.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. If there was such a sign at all then it was not prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen 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. I require that NCP 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 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 recently 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.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require NCP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my 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 WIFI 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. Therefore I contend 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, I put NCP to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised with the pay and display machine.

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put NCP to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours sincerely,

Guys_Dad

That looks like a 100% cast iron loser to me. Please read what wins at POPLA in the POPLA DECISIONS thread.

KeithP

Just to add:

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCs) was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act on 1 October 2015.

greg2424

Guys_Dad wrote: »

That looks like a 100% cast iron loser to me. Please read what wins at POPLA in the POPLA DECISIONS thread.

I don't think you were broad enough with your critique and advice.... 1) Any part in particular which makes it a loser? You say 100% loser which to me indicates it gets thrown in the bin and start completely over not using any part of this one. 2) Any particular post from the POPLA thread of 2,700 you directed me to worth a look?

I read through a number of the posts, in fact I have been trawling through for days, there are only 2 ANPR related appeals from what I can see in the POPLA decisions thread and neither provide much detail as to the appeals letter.

greg2424

OK, I have now revisited the car park in question and the signage is poor. I have taken a number of pictures to prove this point. I have wrote the below letter but obviously the photos have not come out onto the forum. Can someone advise how I can upload the redacted PDF version of the below so that you can view the images also?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Reference number [xxxxxxx]! Vehicle registration: [xxxxxxxx]

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from NCP.

My appeal to NCP was rejected and they gave me POPLA code [xxxxxxxxx].

The basis of my appeal is: Unclear/Obscured Signage and No Offense committed
I am the keeper of the vehicle with the above registration, the driver was not able to observe the one “ANPR” sign located on the CL side entrance of the car park due to a tall vehicle obscuring the signage. As you will note from the below, the entrance to the car park has no height restrictions in place which means that vehicles of any size can enter the car park and spaces are available directly in front of the one sign from that side of the car park (pictures not taken at the time of the alleged offense). It is also noteworthy that the “main” entrance sign makes no mention of the ANPR system in legible or reasonable lettering. The only mention is small text underneath the camera icon which itself is small from an entering drivers “point of view”. It cannot be assumed that either the camera or the text underneath it can be observed in a vehicle travelling at 15-20 miles per hour.

Additionally, and moving onto the second part of the appeal, the vehicle was not parked in a space but instead waiting to use the on-site car wash. The driver abandoned the carwash after 15 minutes deciding to opt for a different one located elsewhere in town. As the driver continued the route through the car park to the TS exit, it is clear from the photos below that there are no indications throughout the car park that ANPR is in use.

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a car park not situated in any bays. I put NCP to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours sincerely,

Umkomaas

you really need to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post # 3 to help you in constructing a winning POPLA appeal. There are a number of ready written appeal points (long ones with all the technical and legal points being made for you) for you to copy and paste to form the backbone of your appeal.

Use these (read each one to ensure it is appropriate to your case, but in 90%+ of the time they will be) and then add other points as appropriate.

But I'd leave this one out:

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a car park not situated in any bays. I put NCP to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described.

This was thrown out by the Supreme Court in the Beavis case. It will definitely not go in your favour at POPLA - and there's the danger that the assessor will spot it and knee-jerk into pressing the reject button (they have a ready made template response to handle 'disproportionate charges' with a final sentence which rejects the whole appeal). Don't go there!