Britannia Parking PCN Portswood Centre, Souhtampton

LoneStarState

Hi All,
I’ve read the newbie thread and would just like some pointers before lodging an appeal for overstaying by 17 minutes at the Portswood Centre car park in Southampton (managed by Britannia Parking). I’ve read a few appeals now (and some ongoing) for this car park and the PPC across this forum and pepipoo. Great effort in compiling all the helpful info.
Notice was posted to relative who is the RK. It was at night with the car park poorly lit with woefully inadequate signage. Driver has not been disclosed (and will not be). I plan to submit a soft appeal using the BPA member template, just wanted to know if the below could be considered not complying with POFA? Also should I bother including the DVLA/keeper paragraph in the BPA template seeing as postal charge notice was served (no window). I guess I should just keep it in as it will probably be just a generic response from BP anyways and the first appeal is only going to go one way.
The Charge notice initially states in the largest lettering that payment of £100.00 is to be made within 28 days but then contradicts itself by mentioning 29 days two consecutive times after on the front page of the charge notice. See extract below.

“Parking Charge Amount Due £100.00
Payment to be made within 28 Days of issue
The parking charge is discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days of the date of issue
After 29 days the full parking charge amount is due
Contravention: Parked longer than the maximum time permitted
Entry Details: -
Exit Details: -

Later POFA paragraph on front page:
You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers name of current address, and if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.
You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given, the Parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under the schedule 4 of that Act.”

Would this discrepancy be worth including at the second stage of appeal (I’m on the yes side)? If so I would likely be including the following points at a POPLA appeal:

1. Inadequate signage – using info posted on newbie thread plus photo evidence
2. Contradictory Non POFA PCN (28 or 29 days to pay, make your mind up?)
3. No evidence of landowner authority.
4. Mention of grace periods IF the signage was adequate to begin with in the poorly lit carpark at night time (referring to BPA COP).
Fortunately I have a relative in Southampton who was also invoiced (and planning to appeal) and lives in close proximity to the car park and so should be able to provide ample photo evidence particularly of poor signage on entry in the dark.
Once again, thank you for all the effort put into this forum.
Any other pointers let me know. Look forward to Britannia’s rejection and the ensuing POPLA appeal. Will post second stage appeal drafts on this thread. Thank you for your time.

Redx

change the blue text appeal by adding 6 characters to that paragraph making it into the past tense

Should you have obtained

it really is that simple, then submit it as KEEPER

use each and every point you possibly can in the POPLA APPEAL , including

NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
any BPA CoP failures
GRACE PERIODS
any NTK failures
any POFA2012 FAILURES
not the same as BEAVIS

etc

LoneStarState

Just a small bump to update on the progress of appeal.

First appeal was made and rejected (unsurprisingly) with a letter that included the ANPR photos and signs from a different car park and not signs from the actual Portswood Centre car park.

Additionally Britannia incorrectly stated in the letter that the grace period for the car park was 10 minutes, wrongly lumping the grace period allowed for locating signs, locating parking space and reading the poorly written terms and conditions, with the minimum 10 minutes grace period to leave at end of parking.

Bit behind on the POPLA appeal draft but slogging away. Should be a beautiful bulky document once finished.

LoneStarState

One more question I forgot to ask. Can you upload multiple documents to the POPLA website or will it have to be one single beast of a document?

Coupon-mad

You WANT it to be one beast of a document with pictures. NOT lots of uploads.

LoneStarState

Unfortunately POPLA appeal rejected in what I thought was quite an amusing decision that would require a fair bit of cherry picking of the appeal. I'll post the decision in the POPLA appeal decision thread also.
Anyways as a summary here is a skeleton of the appeal I submitted:

Grace periods: the alleged "overstay" of 17 minutes fell within allowable grace periods as given in the BPA COP v6, particularly when the ANPR cameras do not accurately capture start and end of a parking period, merely entry and exit to site, and also the car park signage would not have been able to be read from where the driver parked.

Inadequate signage, particularly at night, where entrance signs are not retroreflective and not directly lit, and repeater signs that were lit, but totally unreadable from where parked, including sum for breach.

Signs give inadequate notice of what ANPR data will be used for, particularly the commercial intent of the cameras.

No evidence of period parked: NtK does not meet POFA 2012 requirements

No evidence individual it is pursuing is the driver liable for the charge

No evidence of landowner authority

No planning permission for pole mounted ANPR camera and no advertising consent for signage.

And without further ado here is the "independent" POPLA assessment:

POPLA assessment and decision
26//04//2018

Verification Code
XXXXXXXXXX
Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name S S

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator's case is that the appellant parked longer than the maximum
time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: Grace period. Entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs are not prominent are not clear. The signs fail to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. No evidence of period parked. Notice to keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. No evidence of landowner authority. No planning permission. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of the parking charge, the initial rejection letter and photographs of the signage.

Assessor supporting rational (sic) for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant's vehicle is, so I must consider PoFA 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state "Maximum Stay 2 Hours. THIS CAR PARK IS REGULARLY CONTROLLED BY MOBILE ENFORCEMENT TEAMS. £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which: Exceed the maximum stay period."

The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant's vehicle entering the site at 17:19pm and exited the site at 19:36pm. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant's vehicle remained on site for a total of two hour and 17 minutes. I note the appellant's comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. Based on the evidence provided, I can only see one entrance and one exit for vehicle registration XXXX XXX. Therefore, in this case I conclude that the charge was issued correctly.

Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, "If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges". After reviewing the operator's evidence, it has provided sufficient written authorisation of the landowner confirming it can operate on the land in question.

Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states"you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes". As the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period by 17 minutes, I do not consider this to be a reasonable grace period to exit the car park. Therefore, I will not be applying grace periods in this appeal.

I note the appellant's comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, the signage states "By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems". Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states "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". In the BPA Code of Practice, section 18.3 "signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving." Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs "must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand." I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. The entrance signage is also clear and sufficient.

The appellant also states that there is no planning permission from Southampton City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR camera and no advertising consent for signage. However, this would not be relevant to the appeal and would have no bearing to my decision. The onus is on the appellant to ensure they do not exceed the maximum stay period on site. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate.

Not true:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74261934#Comment_74261934

LoneStarState

Cheers CM! Reckon that statement is a regular copy and paste job by most POPLA assessors.

Will definitely consider writing to POPLA about this and the other failures in the assessor's decision, notably:

willfully ignoring that there are two grace periods in order to discount the grace period point made by the apellant, particularly as operators are mandated by the BPA CoP to heed these grace periods.

Claiming the signs were adequate based on the operator evidence even though alleged contravention occurred at night and the operator photos are ALL in the daytime (including photos labelled "night time" when it is clearly day and the timestamps show the photos as being taken just before 2pm!). In fact the assessor makes no mention of the time of day in their adjudication even though it was specifically mentioned several times in the appeal as to why the signage was not seen.

The claims about ANPR as above (what even is an "ANPR" icon anyways? It's just a camera icon and that does not show any commercial intent). Also, if the photo evidence was taken into account then the assessor would know that there aren't ANPR icons on the entrance signs.

Coupon-mad

Reckon that statement is a regular copy and paste job by most POPLA assessors.

Yes it is, but by enough people quoting Steve Clark's email quoting it and saying it's not true, POPLA will have to stop using it.

Certainly make a similar complaint about that error as per the linked thread within a link that I showed you, by actually copying Mr Clark's email and making POPLA read it.

Coupon-mad

Here is an email from John Gallagher Lead Adjudicator (not obtained by me, but by a hard-working PPC fighting contact):



You highlight that our assessors have incorrectly referenced that the BPA completes audits of ANPR technology. The BPA Code of Practice (21.3) sets out that operators need to ensure the cameras are in good working order, that the data captured is accurate and securely held, and that the BPA's compliance team may audit the systems operators have in place.

Although the BPA Code of Practice sets out that it may audit the systems operators have in place; the BPA does not complete technical checks on the cameras. I am sorry for the misleading wording in some of our assessor's decisions. We have provided advice to our team on this point today.

You suggest we operate a reverse burden of proof in relation to the correct operation of ANPR cameras. Where an appellant disputes the accuracy of ANPR; we would expect the operator to rebut this reason for appeal. We consider the evidence provided by both parties and make a decision using a standard of proof of balance of probability. If an appellant has not qualified their claim, photographs showing the ANPR was working may meet that standard of proof and be sufficient to rebut the reason for appeal. If an appellant provides a more detailed appeal - for example evidence they were elsewhere - the operator might need to provide more persuasive evidence to rebut the reason for appeal.

In weighing up our decisions, we do consider relevant research, such as the attached independent research by the Home Office on ANPR, which highlights that in general use; ANPR is 'remarkably accurate' - while pointing out that there is scope for error.

...

Kind Regards,

John Gallagher

Lead Adjudicator

Umkomaas

Also not to forget that the BPA CEO Andrew Pester himself threw doubt as to the accuracy of ANPR monitoring/management of car parks. If he thinks they are suspect, who is looking out for the motorist if POPLA is seeking greater proof from them than they are from the PPCs?