POPLA appeal for Premier Park PCN

trocter

Hi all,

I received a Premier Park PCN to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at Xercise4Less that we are authorised to manage on the 18th of March 2018

The PCN continues to say: The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park you are bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if you breach these terms and conditions.

This is an absolute joke as the signage installed in this car park is barely visible. I really feel I've been scammed! I was so surprised to receive the PCN that I went back to that place to check that there are any sort of signs. That particular site has been a Dunelm customers' parking until a few months ago when they moved to a new site and Xercise4Less took over the premises. You can see a picture of the parking entrance here: imgur [dot] com/RUMZckb

After reading the Newbies Thread I used the template "one size fits all" first appeal that doesn't say who was driving and submitted it though Premier Park's website. 2 days later I received the following email:
=====================

Dear Mr XXX,

Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to Parking Charge Notice XXXXX. To ensure that we are compliant with codes of practice and in line with legislation there is a requirement to ensure that communication is with the legally registered keeper of the motor vehicle that is held on file at the time of the contravention regarding the above PCN.

To that end an Unauthorised Entry / Parking contravention occurred at Xercise4Les, Sheffield on 18 March 2018. In circumstances where a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is unpaid or requires issuing a request to the DVLA for the registered keeper’s details is made. This is in compliance with the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 Reg.27 – Disclosure of registration and licensing particulars. Because of this contravention, there is reasonable cause to obtain and use this information in compliance with the Data Protection Act.

Having carefully considered your request of the Data Protection Act s.10 on this occasion we have decided that your request is unjustified as per the reasons above.

Your appeal will be dealt with separately, in line with the code of practice.

=====================

This email was followed by another one where they were requesting the driver's details (which have not been supplied):

=====================

Dear Mr XXXXXXXX,

Re: Parking Charge Notice XXXXXX

We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent online appeal, on behalf of the driver, appealing against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the vehicle.

We note your comments and must refer you to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4 - Recovery of unpaid Parking Charges. This is available to view online at:

URL LINK REMOVED

We must therefore request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable UK postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN. This information should be provided by 1st May 2018. Please note, Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

If we do not receive this information by the date given, the registered keeper of the vehicle at the date of event will be held liable.

If you would like to view our photographic evidence, please visit URL LINK REMOVED

Please respond by return or by filling in the Transfer of Liability form on the reverse of the PCN and posting it to Premier Park, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG.

Yours Sincerely,

=====================

Finally on the 2nd of May they've sent me their last email with the POPLA code that mentions the following:

=====================

Thank you for your appeal, on behalf of the driver, against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;

The vehicle was not registered on entry.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options;

You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following payment options;

Call us on: 01302 513232
Pay online: URL LINK REMOVED
Send a postal order: Premier Park Ltd, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG

You can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected or you withdraw your appeal, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due.

If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website, URL LINK REMOVED where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure your POPLA Reference Number, as noted above, is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase until the appeal has been determined.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (URL LINK REMOVED) 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.

If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to our appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Unless any additional relevant information or facts are provided, Premier Park Ltd considers this to be their final decision regarding this appeal.

Please note that all Credit/Debit card payments are subject to a 50p platform charge.

=====================

I'm currently in the process of drafting my POPLA appeal and I would very much appreciate your help.

Reading the 3rd post of the Newbies Thread I can only identify 1 relevant point for my case. This is the point on signage where I can use the template posted in a single thread by Coupon-Mad.

Are there any other points that I could possibly use that I might have overlooked or is the signage point adequate for my case?

KeithP

What about : no keeper liability?
Does the Notice to Keeper comply fully with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act?

What about : no landholder authority?
Does the PPC have the authority of the landholder to manage the car parking?

I won't list all the others as it would only be repeating post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Just go through all the points listed there and compare them all with your situation.

have you sought a cancellation through the land holder?

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

trocter

KeithP wrote: »

What about : no keeper liability?
Does the Notice to Keeper comply fully with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act?

What about : no landholder authority?
Does the PPC have the authority of the landholder to manage the car parking?

I won't list all the others as it would only be repeating post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Just go through all the points listed there and compare them all with your situation.

have you sought a cancellation through the land holder?

Hello KeithP and thank you for your reply.

I haven't sought cancellation through the land holder as there were no use of their services.

I've gone through the NTK and struggled to find any parts that do not comply with Schedule 4 of the PoFA.

With regards to the landholder/landowner authority the only thing that is mentioned on the NtK is the following:

the driver became liable for a parking charge at Xercise4Less that we are authorised to manage

where they do actually say that they are authorised to manage Xercise4Less but they don't really get into much detail about what exactly they are authorised to manage. There are no other mentions of this in the NtK nor any formal agreements or contract numbers to prove this so I will add the "No evidence of Landowner Authority" point as well.

Are there any other points that I should consider adding? Would these 2 points be adequate for the appeal?

Coupon-mad

Did the PCN arrive by post within 15 days?

Embed this image directly as illustration (not a separate upload) in the signage POPLA appeal point, and write a few words explaining that it shows no entrance sign and that the restrictions are new and were not brought to the attention of drivers familiar with the old car park when Dunelm was there:

https://imgur.com/RUMZckb

You can also use 'no landowner authority' and if the PCN didn't arrive in time, 'no keeper liability' and also the new one about the ICO CoP on ANPR surveillance.

Search the forum for ICO ANPR POPLA guinea pig to find a person who used that new point recently, not yet tested with a result but data abuse is very timely at the moment, what with Facebook and the advent of GDPR, so it's got to be done.

trocter

Thank you for your input Coupon-mad.

The PCN arrived promptly.

I will add the image as I do believe it's absolutely outrageous what they've done! It looks like a proper trap to me...

Coupon-mad

OK, and the ICO CoP/ANPR surveillance camera 'guinea pig' POPLA case is even more easy to find now as I've just replied on it! Give it a go.

trocter

Here is the draft appeal, please do let me know if there's anything wrong or missing:



POPLA Ref: [POPLA Ref]
Vehicle Registration: [reg]

I, the registered keeper of the vehicle with the above registration number, received a letter dated [date] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – PREMIER PARK – was submitted and acknowledged by the operator and subsequently rejected via a letter dated [date]. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

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

3. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.



1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

Here is a photograph of the entrance of the parking that clearly shows no sign of entry to a restricted space for private parking.

--- Embedded image here = imgur [DOT COM] /RUMZckb ---

Prior to Xercise4Less this parking used to belong to Dunelm, a home furnishings retailer that didn't adopt such predatory parking restrictions. The current parking restrictions are new and were not brought to the attention of drivers familiar with the old car park when Dunelm was there.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''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. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and 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:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''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.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a '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.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. 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. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.



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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 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



3. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.


BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:
“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
- be registered with the Information Commissioner
- keep to the Data Protection Act
- follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
- follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.

BPA’s Code of Practice (36.1a) states that:
“You may send an NTO to the registered keeper…”
“You must tell them about the complaints procedure they can use to tell the Information Commissioner and the DVLA if they believe their data has been used inappropriately.”

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:
- Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

“the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organisation using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimise these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”

“Note:
... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if PREMIER PARK wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that PREMIER PARK must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require PREMIER PARK to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

“5.3 Staying in Control
Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:
- tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”

“7.6 Privacy Notices
It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear. One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”

PREMIER PARK have not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, PREMIER PARK have not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.
As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

Coupon-mad

Remove this waffle, no idea who first wrote it but it's pointless:

I, the registered keeper of the vehicle with the above registration number, received a letter dated [date] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator PREMIER PARK was submitted and acknowledged by the operator and subsequently rejected via a letter dated [date].

This doesn't make sense!

Here is a photograph of the entrance of the parking that clearly shows no sign of entry to a restricted space for private parking.

Instead, how about:

Here is a photograph of the entrance, showing that there is no entrance sign communicating the vital information that this is private land or that it is 'managed' by a BPA operator.

Remove this little bit (below) from #3 as it has no place in the template, because the argument is not saying that they've not told a keeper of their right to complain to the ICO, that's not what it's about at all:

BPA's Code of Practice (36.1a) states that:
- You may send an NTO to the registered keeper;
- You must tell them about the complaints procedure they can use to tell the Information Commissioner and the DVLA if they believe their data has been used inappropriately.'

trocter

Would it help at all if I embed an image within the appeal of one of the signs displayed in the premises?

Coupon-mad

No, that's far too readable!