Flashpark Advice

nosferatu1001

That's not mitigating (I did it but it's not that bad because...), that's part of the frustration of contract.

Yes post it here so we can review it, same as everyone does.

CFNCFN

All thanks for the help and advice so far. Please see in next post a first stab at a POPLA appeal taken from the various templates and searches on here. All comments welcome.

With regards to the point above about "ICO CoP on surveillance camera use, breached." I am not sure if this stands. As far as is known there is not ANPR or CCTV in the car park and the picture supplied on the PCN looks to have been taken from a hand held camera possibly from the shop door opposite) given the height/angle. Any advice on this?

CFNCFN

Ticket number: xx
Vehicle registration number: xx
POPLA appeal code XX

I write to lodge my appeal to POPLA regarding the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Flashpark as a Notice to Keeper in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at XX on XX 2018. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s keeper for the purposes of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

When I initially raised my dispute with Flashpark, I took great care to explain why it had no valid claim and I was therefore very disappointed to receive from Flashpark a rejection letter that was very clearly a standard template.

I set out below the principal reasons why I am not liable for this parking charge”.
On the “date” I received a PCN in the post for an alleged contravention with a contravention date of “date”. The vehicle in question is described as parking in an area for permit holders only without a permit displayed.

The date of the PCN was labelled as “date” with an outstanding amount of £85 which would be reduced to £55 if it was paid within 14 days.

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. Mitigating Circumstances
2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
4. Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%
5. This is a customer car park for a number of shops (free) not a "permit holders only car park"
6. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
7. Ambiguous, inadequate and non-compliant signage - no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver
8. Case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis

1. Mitigating Circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was and the charge should be waived for this reason. The vehicle had suffered a snapped front left suspension spring and subsequent badly burst/torn front passenger tyre resulting in it being undrivable/roadworthy and needing recovered. This was obvious from the state of the vehicle, presuming a parking attendant looked around it.
The car park in questions was the nearest safe place to stop when the tyre blowout occurred without impeding traffic on a busy main road. Please see attached evidence including confirmation of recovery from the location and invoice for new tyres and coil spring as proof of claim.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability

As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that Flashpark provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.
The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.
Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper.

The NTK issued on XX 2018 does not;
• state the period the car was parked;
• State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when.
As this information is not present then the NTK is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with.
The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability

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)
Flashpark has failed to show that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability ' to rely upon, 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, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
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 Flashpark, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) 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."

4. Any discounts for paying within 14 days should be at least 40%
The original NTK cost is £85 with a reduction to £55 if paid within 14 days this should be at least 40% of the full charge under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the NTK is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
The charge was 'not properly given' in view of a very clear breach of basic charge amounts set out by the BPA. Compliance with this Code was considered to be 'a form of regulation' in ParkingEye v Beavis.

5. This is a customer car park for a number of shops (free) not a "permit holders only car park"
This is a customer car park (free) not a "permit holders only car park" I put it to Flashpark to show strict proof of an actual permit scheme being in operation for all car park users. Not just signs and a PCN mentioning this imaginary contravention.

6. 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

7. Ambiguous, inadequate and non-compliant signage - no valid contract formed between Flashpark and the driver
Flaskpark have not placed any signage at either side of the car park entrance, therefore you have not given the “adequate notice” as required by Schedule 4 of the POFA
Unclear signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that contractual terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. In the absence of sufficiently prominent and detailed signage, the driver could not have been made aware of any charges applicable nor that a contract had even been proposed by Flashpark in respect of the alleged event.
There is no offer to park at the location by payment of a charge, and there is no description of what the driver would receive from such a contract. The Appellant submits that a valid contract was not offered; even if (non-compliant) signs were present, the driver was not offered the opportunity to enter into a negotiation in order to influence the contractual terms, nor given the opportunity to accept or reject any terms.

In addition to the absence of signage at the entrance to the car park and the signs nearest to the location my vehicle was parked were not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
There was no contract or 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.
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.
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.
Additionally, Section 2.7 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “All AOS members must make sure that the AOS logo is prominently displayed in all their car parks, and make it clear to the public that they are governed by the Code”
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:
XXXX
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.

8. Case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis
In its parking charge notice, Flashpark has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £85 loss the landowner might have incurred for the alleged contravention.
The contract entered into between the driver and Flashpark is a simple consumer contract.
This makes plain that the sum of £85 being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors, and is consequently unenforceable.

As this is a simple contract, any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Flashpark's £85 PCN is quite clearly not a genuine pre estimate of their loss and is clearly extravagant and unconscionable. If Flashpark believe their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of this. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.
I would refer the POPLA adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye v Barry Beavis. In that situation the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking places.
Analysis of paragraphs 43-51 from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the Court of Appeal would have considered the charge in this case as an unenforceable penalty. This case can be clearly distinguished from that of ParkingEye v Beavis the judgment in which is irrelevant in this situation.
What the Appeal Court said in ParkingEye v Beavis. This was not contradicted by the Supreme Court so this stands as part of that binding decision and sets pay and display car parks (simple contracts, defined by the sum of the tariff) as 'entirely different':
At the Court of Appeal stage, when addressing the issue of pre-estimate of loss versus commercial justification, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with HHJ Moloney QC’s findings, and opined at paragraph 27 that The application in a case of this kind of a rule based on a simple comparison between the amount of the payment and the direct loss [...] is inappropriate.
In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, [...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,..
The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' which was a far more complex one than ''all the previous cases shown to us {which} have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature.''
Here, this is one of those cases Courts have seen many times before, a simple contract of a 'financial/economic nature' and the only interest the operator has in enforcing their (out of all proportion to the tariff) charge is profit alone.
This position is reinforced in the earlier findings in the Beavis case from the Court of Appeal, where the judgment states:
"44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''
47. ...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...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.;
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 shows this case law still holds because it includes the fact that a consumer cannot lawfully be expected to pay a disproportionate sum in compensation for a small sum owed. This is the fundamental legislation relating to standard contracts between traders and consumers and it is undoubtedly applicable to this case.
The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty. They found the contract in Beavis 'entirely different' from simple, commercial 'monetary transaction' cases such as they had seen before. The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and is incapable of striking out appeals and superseding trite law relating to other parking charges with different facts and, in particular, a monetary tariff.
Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in that case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility. As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.

It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours Failthfully

CFNCFN

Hi guys, any comments on the above?

Thanks in advance....

The_Deep

Had this have happened in a local authority car park it is most likely that this would have been cancelled, see MC22 here

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/car_parks_and_parking/penalty_charges/how_to_appeal_against_a_pcn/mitigating_circumstances.aspx

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.

Coupon-mad

Please see attached evidence including confirmation of recovery from the location and invoice for new tyres and coil spring as proof. [STRIKE]of claim[/STRIKE].

It's not a claim.

I would remove #8. POPLA don't get any argument like that. Don't mention GPEOL!

With regards to the point above about "ICO CoP on surveillance camera use, breached." I am not sure if this stands. As far as is known there is not ANPR or CCTV in the car park and the picture supplied on the PCN looks to have been taken from a hand held camera possibly from the shop door opposite) given the height/angle. Any advice on this?

I agree then.

I would add, as a robust new replacement point #8:

8. Photos taken by 'self-ticketer' (non employee of the operator) and not in compliance with the BPA CoP
As far as is known, there is no ANPR or CCTV in the car park and the picture supplied on the PCN looks to have been taken from a hand held camera by a person lurking in the shop door opposite, given the height/angle.

This is confirmed, as I discovered that FlashPark only advertise a 'self ticketing' regime on their website:

https://www.flashpark.co.uk/self-ticketing/self-enforcement-parking.php

Step 3 and Step 4 under the pictograms on the left, are misleading to the public and landowners alike, regarding the authority of the tickets, and talk about 'the offending vehicle' and the 'offence'. And the fourth paragraph of the precis says:

''The landowner, personal or corporate, decides who can and can't park on the grounds. For example, a company can decide that its own senior employees, authorised contractors and invited visitors can park there - and nobody else - on pain of receiving a Penalty Charge Notice.''

The BPA Code says the following, which is not just about the heading on a PCN, but prohibits all use of the word 'penalty' by AOS members:

''Misrepresentation of authority
14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised.
You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority.
14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory
authority. This includes using terms such as 'fine', 'penalty' or 'penalty charge notice'.''

The final paragraph compounds this misrepresentation of the authority of the private operator in question, by adding:

''The warning signs act as an excellent deterrent on their own and the regulations can be tailor made to suit your car park requirements. In most parking problem cases there is no need for towing away, wheel clamping or self ticketing.''

On this page it is clear that 'FlashPark' is not so much a parking operator, as an automated DIY immediate ticketing system where PCNs are issued by anyone, with any camera, with no training mentioned anywhere except how to take a photo and upload it instantly:

https://www.flashpark.co.uk/HowItWorks.aspx

''Once you report a vehicle to us, and send correct photo evidence, we will send the vehicle's registered keeper a parking charge notice - as quickly as two days later. When a vehicle is reported its registration is checked for accuracy and cross-checked against the police stolen vehicle register. At all times the driver is liable.''

POPLA's attention is drawn to the final sentence, showing that the self-ticketer is not told about 'keeper liability' of their actions, and that only the driver is liable 'at all times'. Clearly a non-POFA operation, in case the lack of a compliant NTK has left POPLA in any doubt.

But it gets worse, as the operator sells a 'simple' (and very much BPA non-compliant) self-ticketing scheme.

''What do I need to do?
Simply create an account online. Then order your warning signs and display them in clear and prominent places around the parking area. We can customise the signs to suit your circumstances and your parking rules. As soon as the signs are displayed, and we have approved your photographic evidence of this, you can begin to issue tickets.''

''How do I issue tickets?
Take a picture of the vehicle in its offending position. Log in to our website and enter the vehicle registration number. Enter the date and time of the offence. Upload the photograph. That's it.''

And on this page:

https://www.flashpark.co.uk/

''Flashpark was developed to provide private landlords and businesses with an alternative to wheel clamping.''

Towing away and wheel clamping are both illegal activities and have been since 2012, yet this is being touted to landowners in the same sentence as 'self ticketing' along with the phrase 'penalty charge notice'.

A link leads you to this PDF, which shows the sum total of 'rules' for this army of self-ticketers ('rules' that are entirely about how to take an incriminating photo and how to quickly mock up a site map using an old Google Streetview aerial picture and re-dating it):

https://www.flashpark.co.uk/siteusercontent/FlashparkSetUpGuide.pdf

No mention whatsoever, on any page or leaflet provided to the landowner, is made of the true level of authority of a private firm, nor that clamping is illegal, nor anything about the applicable laws (e.g. the DPA as the self-ticketer is taking photos and handling personal data in the form of the VRN; the Equality Act relating to reasonable adjustments for disabled drivers, or the POFA).

Most alarmingly, this is touted as a 'quick fix' and nothing at all is said about the mandatory requirements for all self ticketers to abide by, and be fully familiar with, namely the rules within the BPA Code of Practice, which says:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

''Third party sub-contractors and 'self-ticketing'
15.2 If you provide a service to a customer that allows the customer to issue parking charge notices themselves ('self ticketing
services') and you process the tickets, then you are responsible for making sure the customer keeps to the Code. You must provide your customer with an up-to-date copy of the Code and get their signed confirmation that they have read the Code and agree to keep to it.''

There is nothing to suggest that a predatory self-ticketer hiding in a shop doorway at this location, as agreed to keep to the Code, nor even seen or heard of it.

https://www.flashpark.co.uk/car-park-management/

''What do I do if someone parks in my private car park?
It really couldn't be easier to issue parking charge notices through our Flashpark system. Once you have set up an account, and it has been approved, you will be able to issue parking notices to drivers. If you notice someone parked in one of your spaces illegally, simply take some clear pictures of the car, in which it is also possible to see the signs from Flashpark. Once we receive these pictures, we run the registration number through our system, which links automatically with the DVLA and gives us the contact details for the driver.''

Of course, parking on private land is not in fact 'illegal', and the DVLA cannot possibly give the contact details of the driver, only the registered keeper at the time. This operator's self-ticketers are not being trained and are being misled:

''We then issue a parking charge notice to the offender with a picture of their vehicle explaining what they did wrong along with details of the fee payable and the date it is due. The charge is due within 14 days and you can even start to make cash back from the scheme if we issue over nine parking charge notices on your behalf in a calendar month. At this point, you can receive £15 per notice paid.''

So, this operator's website (checked and read thoroughly by me for this appeal in June 2018) proves that FlashPark continue to advertise an incentivised '£15 bounty paid per ticket' quantity scheme, which is expressly prohibited under the BPA CoP paragraph 9.4:

''Effective from 2 January 2018, the practice of offering financial incentives relating to the quantity of parking charge notices in new and existing employee contracts is prohibited.''

CFNCFN

Thanks you very much for your response Coupon Mad much appreciated! I will makes those suggested changes.

Would you add images of the entrance to the car park (no signs) and very hard to pick out signs in the car park as part of section 7? I would post links to them here but it wont let me as a new user. If you search for "1 - 1A, Tenerife, 6 Station Rd, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 1QD" in google maps and look on streetview you will see the car park in question.

CFNCFN

Just as an update... POPLA appeal in last Thursday as per above. Email today from POPLA:

"Vehicle Control Solutions have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."

Result.

Thanks everyone for all you help and advice.

Coupon-mad

Hahaha, must use that 'Self Ticketing' POPLA template again re Flashpark!