NCP POPLA Appeal

Bemused99

Hi,
My sons car entered in a NCP Car park and was there for just over 11 minutes and has received a PCN which has been appealed using the blue text and rejected. Next stage is the POPLA appeal which as suggested is long. I have used many of the standard paragraphs suggested on this forum, but have uploaded the remaining content below for review and guidance. All help is really appreciated.

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XXXX acting as a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper (PCN). My appeal to the Operator !!!8211; National Car Parks (NCP) !!!8211; was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on XXXX and rejected via an email dated XX/XX/XXXX. 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. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; non-compliance
2. 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
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. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5. No Evidence of Period Parked - PCN does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; non-compliance
7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
8. No Planning Permission from Crawley Borough Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; non-compliance

The BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
!!!8220;Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.!!!8221;

BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
!!!8220;You should allow the driver a reasonable !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.!!!8221;

BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
!!!8220;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.!!!8221;

BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
!!!8220;If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.!!!8221;

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a !!!8220;reasonable grace period!!!8221; to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA): !!!8220;The BPA!!!8217;s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator!!!8217;s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.!!!8221; !!!8220;No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.!!!8221;

Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes': !!!8220;Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.!!!8221;

The recommendation reads: !!!8220;Reword Clause 13.4 to !!!8216;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 11 minutes.!!!8221; (Source:link removed)

This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account !!!8211; certainly an allegation of eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms !!!8220;reasonable period!!!8221; and !!!8220;reasonable grace period!!!8221; stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice.

If the BPA feel !!!8220;a minimum of 11 minutes!!!8221; is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions (which in this case were located on the floor and covered in mud !!!8211; see picture below), decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which NCP claim was 11 minutes XX seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given

a) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
b) The failure to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not) and legible once located.
c) The lengthiness of NCP signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included, much of which could not be read as it was positioned on the floor and covered in mud (I since notice that the signage has now been moved and is located in a different position at eye level)

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
!!!8226; Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
!!!8226; Read the full terms and conditions, through the mud marks.
!!!8226; Decipher the confusing information being presented.
!!!8226; Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
!!!8226; Return to car and safely leave the car park.

2. 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

Standard text from forum

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

Standard text from forum

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

Standard text from forum

5. No Evidence of Period Parked !!!8211; PCN does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the !!!8220;period of parking!!!8221;. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the PCN to: !!!8220;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;!!!8221;

The NCP PCN simply claims !!!8220;the vehicle was parked at enter location.!!!8221; The PCN separately states that the vehicle !!!8220;entered [location] at [entry time] and departed at [exit time]!!!8221;. At no stage do NCP explicitly specify the !!!8220;period of parking to which the notice relates!!!8221;, as required by PoFA 2012.

The NCP PCN states !!!8220;The breach relating to the period of parking was recorded by an approved ANPR camera!!!8221;. It is not in the gift of NCP to substitute !!!8220;entry/exit!!!8221; or !!!8220;length of stay!!!8221; in place of the POFA requirement - !!!8220;period of parking!!!8221; - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, NCP are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require NCP to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the PCN.

6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park and two close-up images of the front vehicle number plate. None of these images contains a date and time stamp !!!8220;on the photograph!!!8221;.

The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter above (but not part of) the images of the vehicle. Images have also been cropped to only display the front number plate as evidence for both entry and exit. I require NCP to produce evidence of the original images of the vehicle containing the required date and time stamp. As the images of the number plates are cropped photographs and not the original images, I also require NCP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp.

7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The NCP PCN shows no parking time, merely two images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park

The PCN states:
!!!8220;Entry (from: [Date] at [ENTRY TIME]!!!8221; and Exit (to): [DATE] on [Exit Time].!!!8221;

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By NCP!!!8217;s own admission on their PCN, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
!!!8220;Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.!!!8221;

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.

I require NCP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As !!!8216;grace periods!!!8217; (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park at specific times (11 minutes and XX seconds apart), it is vital that NCP produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.



8. No Planning Permission from XXXXXXX Borough Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search on the XXXXXXX Borough Council website shows no applications for planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras, nor do they have advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3 m2 at the postcode XXXX XXX, the given postcode for the XXXXXXXXX car park on the NCP website.

This proves NCP are/have been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

I request NCP provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (XX/XX/XXXX).

Fruitcake

That is a very good PoPLA appeal. I think NCP would be daft not to pull out when they see it.

The only thing I can think to add would be to require proof that the car was actually at the location specified, since the images could have been taken anywhere.

You should take your own images of the car park and signs to back up your signage point. Embed all images rather than hyperlinks on the real thing as that way the assessor is forced to actually look at the pics.

Oh, don't forget to do a SAR for the keeper's personal data in order that they may properly defend this scurrilous accusation.

Also complain to your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP about this unregulated scam. Include NCP's illegal activity regarding lack of advertising consent and their failure to follow their ATA's CoP which therefore resulted in a breach of their KADOE agreement with the DVLA.

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

Bemused99

Thanks for the feedback. I read somewhere on the forum to delay appealing until the last moment, but can!!!8217;t find it again. Is that the case for PoPLA appeals or should I send the appeal in straight away?

nosferatu1001

Send as soon as you're happy with it.

Redx

you only delay a popla appeal if no NTK arrived between day 29 and day 56 , so there are times for windscreen pcn,s where delaying the initial keeper appeal and the subsequent popla appeal is delayed hoping they fail to issue a postal NTK to the keeper and therefore the keeper wins on a tactical technicality



so if the keeper has received a postal pcn , appealed it and got a popla code, there is no reason to delay any popla appeal, but dont rush it either


as mentioned above , upload the popla appeal as a pdf on their wbesite when you are happy with it , so no need for any delays for tactical or technicality reasons