Euro Car Parks POPLA draft

Weasel262

Oh I will definitely send that complaint to the Information Commissioner. Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Looks good as long as it fits in the Portal.

Then go straight here and upload evidence of your concerns about the data misuse by ECP, and that you suspect they have cropped out some lines from what should be a complete list, not an altered one:

https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/your-personal-information-concerns/

Weasel262

Decision unsuccessful guys, which I was not that surprised about. Even my comment about the doctored screenshot amounted to nothing, which I think is pretty unfair.

Full decision below:

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase a valid pay and display ticket or permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that there is no keeper liability as the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant states that the operator has not shown that that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. The appellant has put the operator is put to strict proof. The appellant states that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. She states that 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. The appellant believes that the case is dissimilar to the Supreme Court Case ParkingEye v Beavis. The appellant states that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology is neither reliable nor accurate. The appellant states that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice. The appellant states that the vehicle images contained in the PCN do not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Pay & display. Up to 90 minutes…FREE. Every hour thereafter…£2.00. This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £75 Parking Charge Notice: purchase & display a valid ticket clearly inside your windscreen”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist did not purchase a valid pay and display ticket or permit. Images from the operator’s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 13:38 and exited at 16:08 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and 30 minutes. A screenshot of its payment system has also been provided, showing that the motorist did not make a payment for their parking session that day. I can see that within her comments, the appellant states that this has been doctored, however the appellant has not provided me with evidence, such as a ticket or bank transaction, to prove otherwise. The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately. The appellant’s case is that there is no keeper liability as the notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of PoFA 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. She states that 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. The appellant believes that the case is dissimilar to the Supreme Court Case ParkingEye v Beavis. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” I note that the appellant states that this case is dissimilar, however the precedent set by the Supreme Court is applicable to all car parks. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within 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. The Act then moved on to define “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 independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the amount of parking charge to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. Further, I do not consider it necessary to discuss the lighting, as it was daytime when the motorist parked. Overall, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has put the operator is put to strict proof. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided me with anything to suggest otherwise. The appellant states that the ANPR technology is neither reliable nor accurate. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, we do receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, we look to see if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator’s evidence pack. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. On this occasion, the appellant has not provided POPLA with any evidence. The appellant states that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice. I refer to the signage, which states: “We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length or stay between entry and exit at all times including bank holidays”. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage does warn drivers. Regardless, I do not consider that this would have affected the motorist’s ability to pay for their parking. Further, should the appellant have any data protection concerns, she would need to contact the ICO directly. The appellant states that the vehicle images contained in the PCN do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Section 20.5a states: “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”. Upon review of the PCN, I can confirm that the images are compliant. I note that they may not be photographs of the full vehicle, however I am satisfied that this is sufficient proof of the contravention. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist did not purchase a valid pay and display ticket, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Weasel262

My next plan is to send a SAR to ECP as per this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5835105/euro-car-parks-popla&highlight=euro+car+parks+popla&page=2#topofpage

and say that their correspondence failed to tell me about my right to SAR, and also that I have complained to the BPA about their conduct regarding section 22.8 of the CoP where operators must accept or reject a challenge in writing. In the original appeal I stated that email correspondence in response to the appeal would not be allowed, and they still sent their rejection by email (in some cases I can see from the aforementioned thread that they aren't even really sending these emails).

it might not get me anywhere but it's worth a try based on the above thread - after the OP did the SAR and complaint to BPA their PCN was cancelled by ECP.