ParkingEye

Baball

So I'm thinking I'll reorder the arguments to put ANPR accuracy first, and probably leave the others pretty much as they are.

I'll need to get an updated draft together tomorrow and hopefully get a chance for some more feedback before I have to submit on Thursday.

Coupon-mad

OK, we need to mainly nail the ANPR accuracy point, no waffle, just the facts and your evidence that the timing was some 33% wrong (a whole 5 minutes wrong between in and out cameras).

Then your evidence needs to be shown after POPLA, to the Information Commissioner, and your local Trading Standards, telling them (even if your own PCN was cancelled) that you have very serious concerns about the synchronisation of ParkingEye's ANPR in/out cameras at this location, which will cause anyone within the 10 minute grace period to get £100 PCN saying they were there for 15.

And people will not normally be able to prove otherwise.

Baball

Thanks again CM. I'll get a rewrite up asap.

Baball

Updated appeal for POPLA, now featuring inaccuracy of data as the first point. Again, any feedback welcomed and appreciated. I have to submit by tomorrow at the latest.

Summary
1. Accuracy of Automatic Number Plate Recognition equipment 1
2. Grace period 2
3. No contract entered into 3
4. No evidence of period parked 4
5. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge 5
6. No evidence of Landowner Authority 7

1. Accuracy of Automatic Number Plate Recognition equipment
It can be shown that the vehicle spent less time in the car park than the operator claims.
The basis for the claim made by the operator regarding the length of stay on the site is the recording of an ‘arrival’ time and ‘departure’ time captured by the ANPR equipment located at the boundary of the site.
I submit that the duration of XX minutes claimed by the operator is inaccurate and unreliable and can provide evidence that the vehicle spent only X minutes at the site, approximately 33% less than the XX minutes claimed by the operator.
Google Maps and the Android mobile operating system will, if allowed, record the location and precise times of movement using GPS and mobile phone tower triangulation. One occupant of the vehicle had enabled this capability and the Google Maps timeline of their movements on the day can be seen below.

<include Google timeline>
<include Google timeline 2>

In can be seen clearly that the car park cited in the parking charge notice was visited from XXXX-XXXX (X minutes, not the XX minutes claimed by the operator)
It can also be seen that the vehicle then travelled to an alternative location where it remained from XXXX-XXXX.
Furthermore, the ‘time in car park’ is calculated as the difference between the ‘arrival’ time and ‘departure’ time as captured by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera located at the entrance/exit. However, vehicles exiting the car park must join a main road and wait to do so while in the field of view of the camera. It cannot be shown when during any period of waiting the ‘departure’ time is recorded.
A charge should not be allowed where there is any doubt regarding the accuracy of the only information upon which that charge is based and I request that this appeal is upheld.

2. Grace period
A ‘total time in car park’ of only XX minutes (as claimed by the operator) or X minutes (as shown previously) should be considered within the limits of a reasonable grace period.
The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice (version 7, January 2018) section 13 concerns the application of grace periods by car park operators. In cases such as this, where there was no agreed contract, paragraph 13.1 is highly relevant and states that:
“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018) paragraph 13.1

It is reasonable to consider then, that a driver should be afforded both:
1. Time to park, locate and consider the offer made by the car park operator and, if deciding to reject the offer,
2. A grace period in which to leave.

Paragraph 13.1 leaves ‘reasonable grace period’ undefined, but we can find guidance on what could be considered a ‘reasonable grace period’ in the subsequent paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4 (emphasis added):
“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018) paragraph 13.2


“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018) paragraph 13.4

Both paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4 clearly stipulate a grace period should be a ‘minimum of 10 minutes’. Whilst paragraph 13.4 applies in cases where a parking contract has ended (in contrast there was no contract in this case), it is reasonable to suggest that the ‘minimum of 10 minutes’ is also a ‘reasonable grace period’ to apply to paragraph 13.1.
The grace period should be a minimum of 10 minutes so it is argued that a total ‘time in car park’ of X minutes as has been shown, or even XX minutes as claimed by the operator, is within the limits of a reasonable grace period given:
1. How busy the car park was – it was midday in August at a busy tourist attraction. It therefore took several minutes to acquire a vacant parking space.
2. The signage communicating the terms and conditions – the full details of the offer made by the car park operator include a solid block of text that is difficult to read and takes time to understand.
3. The occupants travelling in the vehicle – a toddler needed to be safely restrained in their car seat before departure. Any parent will attest to this being an unpredictable and frequently lengthy process.
4. The ‘time in car park’ is calculated as the difference between the ‘arrival’ time and ‘departure’ time as captured by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera located at the entrance/exit. Vehicles exiting the car park must join a main road and do so while in the field of view of the camera. It cannot be shown when during any period of waiting the ‘departure’ time is recorded.

Considering factors such as these, Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) posits that there can be ‘no time limit’ to the act of locating, considering and ultimately rejecting the terms of the contract:

“The BPA’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’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
“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.”

On the basis that both the time the vehicle has been shown to have remained in the car park, and the time the operator claims are both within a reasonable grace period, I request that this appeal is upheld.


3. No contract entered into
The terms of the offer were not accepted and an alternative location was sought.
After reviewing the terms and conditions of the contract offered by the car park operator, the driver of the vehicle signalled their rejection of those terms, through their conduct, by leaving the car park. Without acceptance of the contract, there can be no breach that gives rise to liability for a charge.
As evidence in section 1 of this appeal has shown, the driver then sought an alternative parking location where the terms were accepted and payment of the correct tariff was made.

<include receipts from alternative location>

In November 2017, a similar appeal to POPLA (Appellant versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”
On the basis that no contract was entered into, and therefore no grounds on which a charge can brought, I request that this appeal is upheld.

4. No evidence of period parked
The parking charge notice does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 grants the right to a car park operator to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle only if the conditions of the schedule are met.
Relevant to this case is the second condition that the operator has given notice in accordance with paragraph 6 and, in this case where a notice to driver was not issued, paragraph 9. The requirement for operators to adhere to this Act is also described in paragraph 20.12 of the BPA Code of Practice.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(1):
“A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following conditions are met.”

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2):
“The notice must-”

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a):
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”


The parking charge notice received from ParkingEye, dated XXXXXXXXXX, specifies the vehicle and the relevant land but fails to specify the period of parking and therefore does not meet the requirement of paragraph 9(2)(a). Instead, the notice states only ‘Time in car park’, calculated as the difference between the arrival time and the departure time captured by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera located at the car park entrance and exit.
‘Time in car park’ cannot be substituted for the ‘period of parking’ that is required by paragraph 9(2)(a) as:
1. There is no evidence of the duration that the vehicle was parked in contrast with the time spent driving into, around and out of the site. Navigating the site to locate and subsequently wait for a parking space cannot be considered components of the ‘period of parking’.
2. The ‘departure’ time is recorded at the junction of the car park exit and a main road. There is no evidence of the duration that the vehicle was required to wait in the field of view of the camera before a safe exit to the road could be made. Therefore, it cannot be shown if the time reported as ‘departure’ time was the time at the beginning or the end of the period of waiting to safely join the main road.
It has also been shown earlier in this document that the ‘time in car park’ claimed by the operator is unreliable and inaccurate.
Furthermore, paragraph 20.14 requires the Notice to Keeper issued by the operator to cite the ‘reasonable cause’ they had for requesting personal details from the DVLA. The notice received from ParkingEye fails to do this and lists non-specific reasons:
“By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer than permitted,…”
The use of the term ‘or’ goes to the lack of specificity of their claim and the non-compliance of the notice issued by ParkingEye.
On the basis that the notice received from ParkingEye does not comply with the provisions of both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, and the BPD Code of Practice (version 7, January 2018), I request that this appeal is upheld.

5. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
(template version)

I submit that the notice received from ParkingEye does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 and therefore ParkingEye has not been granted the right to seek payment of a charge from me as keeper of the vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle is not known I request that this appeal is upheld.

6. No evidence of Landowner Authority
(template version)


Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this appeal.

KeithP

Typo:
"BPD Code of Practice" should be "BPA Code of Practice".

Baball

KeithP wrote: »

Typo:
"BPD Code of Practice" should be "BPA Code of Practice".

Thanks KeithP, corrected. Do you think this is good to go?

Coupon-mad

Good to go, if you add as #7, a section on sparse signage (shame to let them off proving their signs which allegedly formed a contract!).

Baball

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good to go, if you add as #7, a section on sparse signage (shame to let them off proving their signs which allegedly formed a contract!).

Thanks Coupon-mad. Should I use the template version?

Coupon-mad

Yes why not, you've done enough work!

Baball

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good to go, if you add as #7, a section on sparse signage (shame to let them off proving their signs which allegedly formed a contract!).

Just a thought on this, would it be contradictory to include a point about inadequate signage when one of the main points already made was that the terms and conditions were read and not accepted?