RINGGO Text Bug and Expired POPLA Code

Coupon-mad

I fear I may have made a stupid mistake in identifying myself as the driver in earlier correspondence but I thought I would try 4 anyway.

I agree, but if doing that, you do not have elsewhere:

I have paid for parking

You have completely missed the long 'unclear signs' point, which is included to make the POPLA appeal deliberately off-putting for a PPC to contest just before they close for their Christmas jolly.

EllGeeAitch

Would it be better to put, "Parking was paid for" or would you recommend taking this out completely?
As parking was paid for by someone else.

Are there any other points I should definitely be including? Any other avenues of argument?

Coupon-mad

Show us the new draft including the long 'unclear signs' template point, and we'll have another look.

EllGeeAitch

Dear POPLA Assessor,
POPLA VERIFICATION CODE ##
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated DD/MM/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Smart Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator and rejected via a letter dated DD/MM/2018. 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. I have paid for parking - Proof of payment
2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
3. Smart Parking has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
5. 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
6. No Planning Permission from Sedgemoor District Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage
7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

 
1) Proof Of Payment
Firstly – payment for three hours of parking was made as evidenced in a screenshot of a bank account below:

This can be backed up by a further screenshot of the RINGGO account below:

Two things are amiss here, firstly, the vehicle registration recorded by RINGGO is XX11, not the XX11 XXX entered via text message when setting up a new registration to pay for the parking of.
Secondly, the time is 11:17. This is due to the voice recognition software employed by RINGGO being unable to recognise the letters and numbers read out. This happened three times as can be seen in the mobile phone records below:

As the voice recognition had failed to interpret the number plate read out three times, wasting seven minutes of time, the user was prompted to send the details via text.
The software that reads the text message uses the spaces in the text message to denote a new field, thus any text entered after a space in the text message will form part of the next field or, will be lost completely and truncated from the string.
This is not made clear in the text message, nor is it obvious that the user should not enter the space which is clearly present on every standard UK number plate. Thus the XX11 XXX entered in the text message has only been recorded as XX11.
This is contradictory to how the software throughout the rest of the RINGGO app and website work. Entering a space in a number plate when filling out a web form or app form will not cause the data to be lost, a clear software issue.
I work in software as a Software Test Analyst which makes me an expert in this area.
2) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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.”
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':
“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 13.4should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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.”(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 – certainly an allegation of eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.
Secondly, 10 minutes is the minimum required grace period, I call upon Smart Parking to show the full unredacted contract of their parking arrangement including what their grace period is.

 
3) 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 including exemptions -such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
I require an underacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.
I do not believe that the contract allows Smart Parking to charge paying visitors £100 for a system or keypad error. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.
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.

 
4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.
There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass. ''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
 
5) 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:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• 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:
LINK REMOVED
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 Smart Parking 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 Smart Parking Ltd must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it. It therefore follows that I require Smart Parking 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.”
Smart Parking Ltd has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keeper’s right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Smart Parking 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.
6) No Planning Permission from Tower Hamlet Borough Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage
A search in Sedgemoor Districts planning database does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for South Road, Brean, nor does it show any advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2.
UK government guidance on advertisement requires:
“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under. It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”
This clearly proves Smart Parking Ltd is/has 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 Smart Parking Ltd provides 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 (15/06/2018).

 
7) 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.
Smart Parking Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because the 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 that 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.

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

EllGeeAitch

I've sent a letter to my MP as well

EllGeeAitch

I only have a few more days to get this submitted and I'm starting to get a bit twitchy! Could someone give me some feedback on my second draft?

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

You still have ''I'' in your headings!

1. I have paid for parking - Proof of payment

And you haven't added the very long signage template from the NEWBIES thread.

EllGeeAitch

Dear POPLA Assessor,
POPLA VERIFICATION CODE ##
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated DD/MM/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Smart Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator and rejected via a letter dated DD/MM/2018. 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. Parking was paid for - Proof of payment
2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
3. Smart Parking has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
5. 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
6. No Planning Permission from Sedgemoor District Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage
7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
8. The signage is unclear

 
1) Proof Of Payment
Firstly – payment for three hours of parking was made as evidenced in a screenshot of a bank account below:

This can be backed up by a further screenshot of the RINGGO account below:

Two things are amiss here, firstly, the vehicle registration recorded by RINGGO is xx11, not the xx11xxx entered via text message when setting up a new registration to pay for the parking of.
Secondly, the time is 11:17. This is due to the voice recognition software employed by RINGGO being unable to recognise the letters and numbers read out. This happened three times as can be seen in the mobile phone records below:

As the voice recognition had failed to interpret the number plate read out three times, wasting seven minutes of time, the user was prompted to send the details via text.
The software that reads the text message uses the spaces in the text message to denote a new field, thus any text entered after a space in the text message will form part of the next field or, will be lost completely and truncated from the string.
This is not made clear in the text message, nor is it obvious that the user should not enter the space which is clearly present on every standard UK number plate. Thus the xx11xxxentered in the text message has only been recorded as xx11.
This is contradictory to how the software throughout the rest of the RINGGO app and website work. Entering a space in a number plate when filling out a web form or app form will not cause the data to be lost, a clear software issue.
I work in software as a Software Test Analyst which makes me an expert in this area.
2) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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.”
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':
“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 13.4should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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.”(Source:
LINK
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 – certainly an allegation of eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.
Secondly, 10 minutes is the minimum required grace period, I call upon Smart Parking to show the full unredacted contract of their parking arrangement including what their grace period is.

 
3) 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 including exemptions -such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
I require an underacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.
I do not believe that the contract allows Smart Parking to charge paying visitors £100 for a system or keypad error. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.
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.

 
4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.
There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass. ''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

EllGeeAitch

5) 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:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• 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:
LINK
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 Smart Parking 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 Smart Parking Ltd must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it. It therefore follows that I require Smart Parking 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.”
Smart Parking Ltd has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keeper’s right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Smart Parking 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.
6) No Planning Permission from Sedgemoor District Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage
A search in Sedgemoor Districts planning database does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for South Road, Brean, nor does it show any advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2.
UK government guidance on advertisement requires:
“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under. It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”
This clearly proves Smart Parking Ltd is/has 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 Smart Parking Ltd provides 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 (DD/MM/2018).

 
7) 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.
Smart Parking Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because the 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 that 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.
 
8) The signage is unclear

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

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 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 or 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:

LINK
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:

LINK

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.

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:

LINK

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

LINK

''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:

LINK

''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:

LINK

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.