PCN with PE Stage 1 - Should I include photographs at this stage or examples?

PEripoffs

Posted below for people who cannot access the link:


Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v ParkingEye Limited

Vehicle Registration: [XXX]
POPLA ref: [XXX]
I the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated [XXX] acting as a notice
to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – ParkingEye Ltd – was
submitted and acknowledged on [XXX] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated
[XXX]. 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.Signage is inadequate which has been shown to be the case in court previously, in addition signage was significantly damaged to the point where notices were entirely unreadable. I have a witness statement to further support this was the case on the day.

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

4. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

5. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

6. The BPA do not audit ANPR systems, which process data unreliably and excessively

7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for



Signage is inadequate which has been shown to be the case in court previously, in addition signage was significantly damaged to the point where notices were entirely unreadable. I have a witness statement to further support this was the case on the day

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.

This has previously been challenged and ruled in the motorists favour at the same location as evidenced in regional news:

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/trainee-solicitor-wins-parking-ticket-case-for-brother-1-777088

In addition to the above the signs were significantly damaged or missing to the point of being entirely unreadable as evidenced by my photographs below:


Photograph of sign at entrance to parking area - impossible to read what is written on the sign




Photograph of sign taken standing directly in front of the sign - writing still completely illegible


It would be impossible to read the signs whilst driving or even stood directly in front of the sign due to the level of damage.



View from parking bay - no signs visible at all

This final image shows a view from one of the parking bays which clearly demonstrates there are no visible signs from a drivers viewpoint.

Furthermore I have attached a witness statement which supports the images taken and the lack of visible signs

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.



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

PEripoffs

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:
l be registered with the Information Commissioner
l keep to the Data Protection Act
l follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
l 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
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/for- organisations/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 organization 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
minimize 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 ParkingEye Ltd 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 ParkingEye Ltd must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require ParkingEye Ltd 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.”

ParkingEye Ltd has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the
keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, ParkingEye Ltd has 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.
No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK 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.

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
ParkingEye Ltd’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. At no stage does Parking Eye Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012.
ParkingEye Ltd uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay.

Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. ParkingEye Ltd, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of ParkingEye Ltd to substitute entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

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


Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – 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 unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to
and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. 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 NtK in question contains two close-up license plate images. The time and date stamp and license plate have been inserted into the underneath (but not part of) the images. In addition, the second image appears to show the vehicle using the center of the road to turn around. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by ParkingEye Ltd’s APRN. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and ParkingEye Ltd claim was unauthorized. I require ParkingEye Ltd to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than just passing by. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, failing to produce such evidence would indicate the ParkingEye Ltd has been using APRN to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send NtK with the aim to extract penalty.
Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.

Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially
incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require ParkingEye Ltd to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

The BPA do not audit ANPR systems, which process data unreliably and excessively

ParkingEye Ltd’s NtK simply claims “that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. ParkingEye Ltd states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site.

In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, POPLA please take note and bin your usual 'ANPR is generally OK' template because:
The British Parking Association DOES NOT AUDIT the ANPR systems in use by
parking operators, and the BPA has NO WAY to ensure that the systems are in good
working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has NOT
found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and
this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.

As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first
one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:

Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says:
"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined
your case which said:
In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking
Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure
that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate"

You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us.
This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.”

POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says:

''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working
order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held
and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR
system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.''

Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras
themselves.''

Secondly, ANPR data processing and/or system failure is well known, and is certainly inappropriate in a mixed retail and residential area, such as the location in question.
The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws: http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'' and they
specifically mention the flaw of assuming that 'drive in, drive out' events are parking events.
They state that: ''Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates
issued in this manner''.

In this case, the ANPR system has indeed failed and the operator has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data from their system.
Excessive use of ANPR 24/7 when such blanket coverage is overkill in terms of data
processing, was also condemned by the BPA and the ICO:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/excessive-use-of-anpr-cameras-for-enforcement

As POPLA can see from that, excessive use of ANPR is in fact, illegal, and no-one audits it except for the ICO when the public, or groups, make complaints.

ParkingEye Ltd is put to strict proof that the system has not failed visitors to adjacent sites.

POPLA cannot use your usual 'the BPA audits it' erroneous template which needs consigning to the bin.

Please show the above email from Steve Clark, to your Lead Adjudicator.

Kindly stop assuming ANPR systems work, and expecting consumers to prove the impossible about the workings of a system over which they have no control but where independent and publicly available information about its inherent failings is very readily available.

The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.

The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this
technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. ParkingEye Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

There is no information that indicates these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.

PEripoffs

Ok so Parking Eye have come back with their evidence pack which seemed a little odd, not sure if that's me misunderstanding it however. Should I be posting the details they have provided in full? I have highlighted some bits below :

Operator Name Parking Eye Ltd

Operator Case Summary
The operator didn't provide a case summary

Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.

This is the only mention of land owner authority, but unless I am mistaken this isn't evidence of a contract?

There is also this passage:
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background

however this isn't true, some of it is in grey, some in green and the bit with the actual charge on is white on black.
The images they have provided of the signs are interesting as despite them being able to control everything about the image supplied the text at the bottom is basically unreadable

Coupon-mad

This is the only mention of land owner authority, but unless I am mistaken this isn't evidence of a contract?

You win then, unless they attached a Witness Statement from the landowner/agent!

There is also this passage:
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background

however this isn't true, some of it is in grey, some in green and the bit with the actual charge on is white on black.
The images they have provided of the signs are interesting as despite them being able to control everything about the image supplied the text at the bottom is basically unreadable

Say all of the above in your reply.

PEripoffs

Ok so I have checked through the two documents they uploaded again (its actually just one doc and two copies of it)

The text above is the only reference of authority, no attached statements. So I am pretty sure based on what you have said this is my winning point and should be the first thing I say:

1. There is no evidence of any contract between the landowner and Parking Eye - As Parking Eye are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver. Parking Eye has failed to provide to provide evidence of a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract.

2. Parking Eye have provided a map of signs however as demonstrated by the photographs I have provided, these signs were damaged or missing. It is Parking Eye's responsibility to ensure that the signs are in a condition that is readable, it was not possible for the driver to be able to read the signs due to the photographed damage and as a result no contract could be formed

3. Parking Eye State: "The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background"

however as the images provided demonstrate this isn't true, some of it is in grey, some in green and the bit with the actual charge on is white on black.
The images they have provided, which Parking Eye have complete control of, clearly demonstrate that the majority of the text is actually unreadable even when it is printed onto an A4 piece of paper. The images taken from within the carpark further confirm this as almost nothing is readable on the provided images.

The signs have been proven in court previously to be inadequate as reported by regional news.

4. Parking Eye claim that "there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park" - however the signage plan that they have provided shows that this is not true, there are no signs at the exit which would be facing the direction of the driver, furthermore the signage map shows multiple positions where cars could park without any signs visible, in particular at the top of the provided map, closest to the business and on the right & left hand sides where signs would be obscured by trees.

This is in addition to the fact that signs were demonstrably damaged and even in the correct position could not be read.

5. Parking Eye state "You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable"

However I have made no such statement, Parking Eye appear to have copied and pasted their comments from another document which is irrelevant to the evidence I have provided, they have failed to address the majority of the points I raised and have not refuted the points I raised as a result.

I could raise some points on ANPR if necessary as the privacy text at the bottom is absolutely tiny and I don't think is complete, screenshot below:

https://i.postimg.cc/rmvmfPjr/Capture.png

Does that all sound ok or should I be writing more/focusing on other points?

nosferatu1001

You realise you have
a) 2000 characters only and
b) the limited attention span of the assessor to grab early on?

Dont waffle
Might be worth checking that you have the ENTIRE pack. 2 pages is NOT their usual amount.

PEripoffs

I haven't counted the characters to be honest! I assume you think that's too much? (just checked and its 2600 so I need to trim it significantly)

and its two documents, they are 38 pages long but mostly just contain section dividers and copies of the correspondence between us, 6 images (one image per page)

nosferatu1001

Yes its long and waffly. Get to the point youre making.

PEripoffs

I have trimmed about 800 characters off - still too much waffle or better?

1. There is no evidence of any contract between the landowner and Parking Eye - Parking Eye are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver.

2. Parking Eye have provided a map of signs however as demonstrated by the photographs I have provided, these signs were damaged or missing. It was not possible for the driver to be able to read the signs due to the photographed damage and as a result no contract could be formed

3. Parking Eye State: "The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background"

however as the images provided demonstrate this isn't true, some of it is in grey, some in green and the bit with the actual charge on is white on black.
The images they have provided, which Parking Eye have complete control of, clearly demonstrate that the majority of the text is actually unreadable even when it is printed onto an A4 piece of paper.

The signs have been proven in court previously to be inadequate

4. Parking Eye claim that "there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park" - The signage plan that they have provided shows that this is not true, there are no signs at the exit which would be facing the direction of the driver.

The signage map provided proves there are areas where no signs are visible from the location parked.

5. Parking Eye state "You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable"

However I have made no such statement, Parking Eye appear to have copied and pasted their comments from another document which is irrelevant to the evidence I have provided, they have failed to address the majority of the points I raised.

Coupon-mad

PE evidence packs are normally 40 pages or more!

Ring POPLA in the morning and check, has the Portal shown you all of it?