POPLA Appeal Review Please

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.

acarty

Afternoon,

I submitted the POPLA appeal above and received a response from CEL as below. I was wondering if you would mind sparing a few minutes to read over it before I send it off?

Thanks for the time you have all contributed so far.

Andy.


CEL Response:


https://www.flickr.com/gp/154064776@N06/N1GY2R
https://www.flickr.com/gp/154064776@N06/Lr48n9
https://www.flickr.com/gp/154064776@N06/z24GZ4
https://www.flickr.com/gp/154064776@N06/wABE4F
https://www.flickr.com/gp/154064776@N06/1hjyG0


POPLA Appeal – Evidence Pack Rebuttal
Rebuttal of evidence pack received from Civil Enforcement Ltd on XXX


Registered Keeper: XXX
PCN: XXX
POPLA Verification Code: XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX


Dear Sirs


Ref. POPLA appeal XXX
In response to the ‘evidence pack’ that has been received from Civil Enforcement Ltd:


CEL have submitted a 22 point ‘evidence pack’ in support of their response to POPLA. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their response is clearly a quickly hashed template, having referred to “his POPLA submission” and “she was not parked” in the same sentence (paragraph 16), in addition to much of the response being repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment, I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on XXX.

1. CEL stated “There are many clear and visible signs displayed in the car park advising drivers of the terms and conditions applicable when parking in the car park”. They have included a zoomed photograph of the car park sign in paragraph 14. It can be seen that this text has been increased in size by enlarging the picture when compared with the image taken at head height (please see figure 7 of my first letter sent to CEL). Furthermore, it has been confirmed by myself in my first letter and POPLA appeal that no period of parking occurred since the car was turned around at the entrance to the car park on two occasions and was not parked in a space in the car park at any time. It is also noted that CEL have not provided proof that the vehicle remained on site for the alleged period of parking (please see point 1 in my POPLA appeal).


The colours blue and yellow are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. CEL have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP. Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car at the entrance of the car park and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Photographs contained in the ‘evidence pack' provided by CEL show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic.
2. CEL stated “Our Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras recorded the Appellant’s vehicle, registration number in the car park during the date and time shown on the front summary sheet of this appeal.” Both ANPR camera images show the vehicle on the pavement during the two turns in the road that were carried out. They do not show the vehicle in the car park as stated. Since the vehicle did not enter the car park and park in a space, no contract was agreed and there has been no evidence of a contravention taking place as the vehicle was never parked. The first ANPR image supplied is poor in quality and it can be seen that the vehicle is on the pavement and not in the car park. The second image also shows the vehicle on the pavement and not in the car park. It can be seen in the second image that the reverse light is illuminated on the passenger side rear light and the brake lights are also illuminated. This provides further evidence that the second ANPR image was captured whilst the vehicle was reversing. The brakes were applied and the vehicle was stopped before entering the car park, supporting that no period of parking elapsed. The ANPR system has failed and CEL has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data from their system.


It was requested that CEL provide proof of regular privacy impact statements being undertaken in order to comply with BPA’s CoP; no evidence has been provided. They have also breached the BPA’s CoP by not explaining the keepers rights to a Subject Access Request (SAR); this is a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR such that it males the use of this data unlawful. Considering the lack of evidence provided by CEL and with the ANPR images being taken whilst the vehicle was on the pavement on Cairo Street, I believe that my data has been used inappropriately and therefore will be notifying the Information Commissioner and the DVLA.
3. CEL stated “Please note that the Appellant had admitted to being the driver on the day in question and does not dispute the duration spent in the car park” in paragraph 12. The duration spent in the car park was disputed in both the first appeal letter sent to CEL and the appeal submitted to POPLA (please see point 1 in the POPLA appeal which states “Since the vehicle did not enter the car park (and therefore did not park), no period of parking elapsed.”.


4. In paragraph 14, CEL refer to the terms and conditions located above the pay stations at a distance away from the car park entrance. They have referred to point (c) which states “if you … (c) do not enter your full, exact registration number when making your payment, you agree to pay the standard fee of £100 per day to Civil Enforcement Ltd.”. As stated in my initial appeal letter to CEL, the car was not parked in the car park and two turns carried out at the entrance of the car park were within the 10 minutes stated, therefore not entering into a contract and not agreeing to the £100 per day charge to Civil Enforcement Ltd. It is stated in paragraph 15 that the “Appellant failed to purchase parking for her vehicle…”. To reiterate, a parking ticket was not purchased since the vehicle was not parked in the car park during the times specified.
5. In paragraph 16, CEL have stated “In his POPLA submission, the Appellant states that she was not parked at the location stated, however, we have checked our ANPR footage and can confirm that this is not the case.”. They refer to the ANPR images, however as mentioned these no not show the car in the car park, nor do they show the vehicle in a parking space. They show the vehicle on the pavement on Cairo Street. There has been no evidence provided to show that the vehicle entered the car park or parked in any space.


6. In relation to the accuracy of the ANPR cameras, CEL stated in paragraph 17 that “These are regularly calibrated to ensure accuracy, and are automatically updated to be in line with Greenwich Mean Time.”. They have not presented any records of the dates and times when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronized with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images as requested during the POPLA appeal. Since they have not supplied evidence that the ANPR system meets the standards of the BPA CoP, this demonstrates that CEL are incompetent with their ANPR system and inferring from the quality of the evidence submitted in the first ANPR image, lie about their maintenance and quality checks.
7. The ANPR images that CEL has provided does not show a vehicle with the registration of XXX. Instead, all the pictures show is an unidentifiable red car on the pavement next to the car park entrance. The first ANPR image is of such poor quality that it breaches the BPA CoP (Section 20 Paragraph 5), specifically “All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible”. I submit that this evidence is not clear and legible, and cannot be used to support any claim by CEL. CEL can prove that a red car was on the pavement next to their car park entrance at the given data and time, but their assertion that the car has the registration XXX is unfounded, and ambiguous at best.


CEL appear to have provided supplementary evidence for both ANPR images to support the claim that a car with the registration XXX was at the car park entrance; this evidence is insufficient and ambiguous as it does not establish context or a location and it is also digitally altered: it does not prove entry at the given time. All they show is a picture that resembles the registration plate XXX at two given times. The images have also been heavily digitally altered by having a monochrome filter applied and they have digitally altered it further by cropping the image. The second ANPR image only shows a number plate. Part of the number plate has been obscured when the image has been cropped and there is no view of the vehicle in this image; there is therefore no way to establish context of this image.
8. CEL state that “The grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice, and we have deemed this incident to have exceeded the allowed grace period.”. The vehicle did not enter and park in the car park and did not exceeded the allowable grace period of 10 minutes as specified in the BPA CoP.


9. There has been no evidence provided to demonstrate that Civil Enforcement Ltd is the legal owner of the land as requested during the POPLA appeal. There has also been no evidence provided that Civil Enforcement Ltd have a contract with the owner/occupier that entitles themselves to levy these charges and therefore have no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCN’s). CEL have not demonstrated compliance with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP which defines the mandatory requirements.As CEL are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver. CEL has failed to provide to provide evidence of a full copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.
10. It was requested that CEL provide evidence that the correct planning applications were submitted and approved in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3m3. This was not provided, suggesting that CEL is/has been seeking to enforce terms and conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.


In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that Civil Enforcement Ltd has failed to prove that the vehicle entered and parked in the car park during the times specified.
Accordingly, I request that this appeal must be allowed.

Regards


XXX.

KeithP

You will need to prune that response drastically.

You only have 2,000 characters for your response.

It is currently over 10,000 characters long.

acarty

Wow how did I miss that?! I read it as 2000 words, must have been a long day!!

Coupon-mad

Also POPLA just will not read a long set of comments, even if you tried to get round the 2000 character limit by emailing POPLA instead (not recommended). To POPLA it looks like a second appeal and they will ignore it.

So bullet points only. And forget the final point about planning permission, has no legs.

acarty

Thanks for the info both. How does this look?

CEL’s response is clearly a quickly hashed template, referring to “his” and “she” in the same sentence (p16). Much of the response is repetitive. In making their assessment, I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal.

1. The first ANPR image is of such poor quality that it breaches BPA’s CoP (S20 P5) and both images show the vehicle on the pavement, not in the car park. The second ANPR image shows the reverse light illuminated on the passenger side and the brake lights illuminated; evidence that the second ANPR image was captured whilst the vehicle was reversing. The brakes were applied and the vehicle was stopped before entering the car park, supporting no period of parking elapsed. The ANPR system has failed and CEL has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data. The images showing the registration plate have been digitally altered (monochrome filter and cropping). Part of the number plate is obscured in the second image with no view of the vehicle.

2. The image of the car park sign in p14 has been enlarged to increase the text size (see fig 7 in my CEL appeal - image taken at head height). No period of parking occurred and no contract was entered as the car was turned around at the car park entrance on 2 occasions and did not park in a parking space. CEL have not provided evidence that the vehicle parked and remained on site for the alleged period of parking.

3. No evidence of privacy impact statements undertaken to comply with BPA’s CoP has been provided. CEL has breached the BPA’s CoP by not explaining keepers rights to a SAR. I believe my data has been used inappropriately and will be notifying the Information Commissioner and DVLA.
4. CEL have not presented any records of the dates / times when the cameras were calibrated.

5. There is no evidence to show CEL is the legal land owner or that they have a contract with the owner that entitles themselves to levy these charges and so have no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCN’s).

In consideration of the evidence before me, I find that CEL has failed to prove the vehicle entered and parked in the car park during the times specified. Accordingly, I request that this appeal must be allowed.

acarty

I will make 1-5 bullet points but the forum wouldn’t let me :huh:

nosferatu1001

Well no, its a simple forum. It doesnt understand bullet points!

How many characters is this?

acarty

Apologies, I read it as without spaces included. It is now 2000 characters.



CEL’s response is quickly hashed template, referring to “his” and “she” in one sentence (p16). In making their assessment, I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal.

The first ANPR image is of such poor quality it breaches BPA’s CoP (S20 P5). Both images show the car on the pavement, not in the car park. The second ANPR image shows the reverse light illuminated on the passenger side and the brake lights illuminated; evidence that the second ANPR image was captured whilst the car was reversing. The brakes were applied and the car was stopped before entering the car park, supporting no period of parking elapsed. The ANPR system has failed and CEL has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data. The images of the number plate have been digitally altered (monochrome filter and cropping). Part of the number plate is obscured in the second image with no view of the car.

The image of the car park sign (p14) is enlarged to increase the text size (see fig 7 in my CEL appeal - image taken at head height). No period of parking occurred and no contract was entered as the car turned at the car park entrance on 2 occasions and did not park in a space. CEL have not provided evidence that the car parked and remained on site for the alleged period of parking.

No evidence of privacy impact statements undertaken to comply with BPA’s CoP has been provided. CEL has breached the BPA’s CoP by not explaining keepers rights to a SAR.

CEL have not presented any records of the dates / times when the cameras were calibrated.

There is no evidence to show CEL is the legal land owner or that they have a contract with the owner that entitles themselves to levy these charges and so have no authority to issue PCN’s.

In consideration of the evidence before me, I find that CEL has failed to prove the car entered and parked in the car park during the times specified. Accordingly, I request that this appeal must be allowed.

Coupon-mad

If you need to reduce it further, remove the waffle/padding like:

In making their assessment, I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal.

In consideration of the evidence before me, I find that CEL has failed to prove the car entered and parked in the car park during the times specified. Accordingly, I request that this appeal must be allowed.