Brittania PPC Newbie post

Taliessa

2) 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, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner/landowners.
I am aware that there is already some kind of legal dispute here currently going on. The manager at 'The Raj' Indian restaurant, when contacted by the driver regarding the Britannia parking charge, told the driver that Britannia do not have landowner authority to be in place and what they are doing is illegal. He says that the car park is jointly owned by all nine businesses in the parade and that he has not given his consent for Britannia Parking to be issuing these parking restrictions and penalties for overstaying imposed time limits that he does not give his consent to.
He told the driver that this has seriously affected his business and many of his customers have been given these parking charges which he emphatically states are unenforceable by law and are illegal.
The manager told the driver that his solicitors are currently in litigation with Britannia Parking.
Furthermore he told the driver, during their phone call of XXXXX, that as a long term and valued customer that the driver could park in the car park in question for as long as necessary to order and consume the meal. This does not even take into consideration socialisation time at this venue, only the ordering and consuming of the meal, minimum time would be at least one hour and certainly not the time imposed restriction that Britannia are attempting to enforce which is only twenty minutes.
The manager at The Raj also offered his sincere apologies to the driver.
As you can see, the driver clearly falls into the category of 'genuine customer' and proof can be provided regarding the fact that the driver was, in fact, at The Raj Indian restaurant on the evening of XXX 2018 for one hour from 10.00pm to 11.00pm.
In Britannia's rejection of appeal letter to me, they stated :-
"Britannia Parking do not have a contract with The Raj, nor are we affiliated in any way to other local businesses."
Whilst it is not my place to become involved with any current legal disputes between The Raj and Britannia Parking, 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 CoP especially in the case of the driver as a 'genuine customer' at a restaurant,) 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.
Britannia claim they have no contract with The Raj yet they are asking for this Parking Charge by assuming contract with the driver on XXXXX, who was frequenting The Raj at that time. The Raj state that they (The Raj) do have proprietary interest in the land and that Britannia Parking do not.
In this case my question is why do Britannia not have a contract with the Raj, if the Raj have proprietary interest in the land and it is their customers using the car park which is adjacent to their premises?
As you can see from figures C, D, E and F, The Raj had put up a notice saying
"NO TIME LIMIT FOR CUSTOMER PARKING ".
This suggests said exemptions are in place and also, given The Raj's manager's communications with the driver, brings landowner authority into question.
I sumbit that, as the manager from The Raj has asserted, that Britannia Parking, do not, in fact, have landowner authority.
Section 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.
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

Taliessa

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.)


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:
a) be registered with the Information Commissioner
b) keep to the Data Protection Act
c) follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
e) 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
f) 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 Britannia Parking 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 Britannia Parking must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.
It therefore follows that I require Britannia Parking 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 and I wish to see when this privacy assessment was last carried out.
I put the operator to proof of evaluation of necessity and proportionality given that the businesses that the car park serve are a restaurant, fast food establishment, chemist, cafe, launderette, off licence, bakery, clothing alteration service and a hair salon and how and why a twenty minute parking restriction affords the need for 24/7 monitoring with ANPR?
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.”
Britannia Parking has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Britannia Parking 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.

4) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.
This 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.
Britannia'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 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.
2) Companies such as Britannia Parking have now quite a reputation of being unscrupulous in their business tactics, praying upon the uneducated and the vulnerable.
Parliament has already agreed that companies such as Britannia Parking are "an absolute disgrace to this country" and they have been condemned by parliament as "an outrageous scam." (Hansard 2.2.18)
Given the wording on Britannia's own website, which reads :-
"If you own land with the potential to provide an income by operating as a car park, or if you already have a car park operating on your land and feel you are not realising its full potential in revenue terms, then please contact our car park acquisitions team to book a discrete site survey without any obligation whatsoever."
The incorrect use of the word 'discreet' here, given the context in which it is used, is not my own but taken word for word from Britannia Parking's website.
The point here is that Britannia Parking advertise to potential clients how they can 'provide an income' through charging motorists to park on their private land. This suggests that this company's goal is the aquisition of revenue and not the fair and honest use of parking areas to genuine and law abiding motorists.

I dispute this parking charge on the grounds stated within this appeal. Signage is insufficient and contravenes the BPA code of practice and that Britannia Parking have no authority from landowner/landowners to form contract with drivers who park there and data protection has not been complied with. I put the operator, Britannia Parking, to strict proof of the above.

Taliessa

A little more information.

The launderette supply the electricity to the cameras and they instructed Britannia. However they are not the landowners and have no idea who owns the land. Spoken also to the off-licence who thought the launderette owned the land. The Raj say all nine businesses have proprietary interest. Only the launderette can waive the parking fee with Britannia.

Is my POPLA appeal ok? I have 12 photographs to send in with my appeal. Thanks!

Guys_Dad

None of the businesses there can give anyone permission to vary the t&c on the parking notices unless they have permission from the landowner to do that.
So the Indian restaurant, from your provided information, can no more give you permission to park than to drive at 100mph down a motorway.

You need to find out who the landowner is - try your local council's records.

Then you challenge the PPC having landowner permission to operate - check the landowner actually signed the PPC contract when you demand they produce proof.

Then you pull apart the signage for non compliance.

Your over long appeal has far too much irrelevant rubbish in it.

e.g. Companies such as Britannia Parking have now quite a reputation of being unscrupulous in their business tactics, praying upon the uneducated and the vulnerable.
Parliament has already agreed that companies such as Britannia Parking are "an absolute disgrace to this country" and they have been condemned by parliament as "an outrageous scam." (Hansard 2.2.18)
and

The manager told the driver that his solicitors are currently in litigation with Britannia Parking.
Furthermore he told the driver, during their phone call of XXXXX, that as a long term and valued customer that the driver could park in the car park in question for as long as necessary to order and consume the meal. This does not even take into consideration socialisation time at this venue, only the ordering and consuming of the meal, minimum time would be at least one hour and certainly not the time imposed restriction that Britannia are attempting to enforce which is only twenty minutes.
The manager at The Raj also offered his sincere apologies to the driver.


Some poor person has to read your diatribe. The longer it is, the more they will get fed up.

Be concise, to the point and you are not trying to out do Tolstoy.

To prove my point - you have had no comments apart from mine for 24 hours. Not even Coupon Mad !

Taliessa

"None of the businesses there can give anyone permission to vary the t&c on the parking notices unless they have permission from the landowner to do that."

Yet the launderette are doing that and yet have no idea who the landowners are? Confusing. Nothing in council records that I can find. Will keep digging.


"Be concise, to the point and you are not trying to out do Tolstoy."

Thanks for the advice. I did read on here to make your appeal long but will re draft. Also my IP address has been banned so I am having trouble logging in. After posting my appeal, they banned me. Don't know what I did wrong.

KeithP

Taliessa wrote: »

Also my IP address has been banned so I am having trouble logging in. After posting my appeal, they banned me. Don't know what I did wrong.

[URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706338thread [/URL]may help with that.

Taliessa

Thankyou. That is what I did, copy and pasted directly from word. I have contacted the administrator who say that my IP address is not in their list of banned IP addresses so there is nothing they can do. I just have to keep tethering my computer via my mobile to log in

Redx

do NOT copy and paste from word , copy it into notepad or wordpad and save that and then copy from that doc instead. if its long that cana lso cause problems, meaning you split it over 2 posts instead of 1 (its an anti spam security measure or similar)

try rebooting your router to get a different internet IP address from your broadband provider


your council should know whp pays the non domestic rates for that land, also the LAND REGISTRY have details on the landowner or landowners


it is for BRIT to prove that they have LANDOWNER permission, not laundrette permission, or that they have laundrette permission who also have landowner permission (so it flows down the line)

Taliessa

Update - Court Claim received. Solicitors are BW Legal.
POPLA appeal was dismissed as they said they did not receive any photographic evidence from me. All photos were embedded within the PDF appeal and clearly marked. I asked them to look again at the appeal with the photos but they declined and said their decision was final.
I am now compiling my defence and am reading through the defence help sticky threads with thanks.
The court claim issue date is 3rd June. Claim has been acknowledged.
Is it correct that I have 33 days from issue to submit my defence?
Which would make the deadline 6th July?
BW Legal have increased the original charge (invoice) by £60. I am being pursued as registered keeper.
I have found out the name of the landowner. His phone/email and other contact is all unavailable. He owns the launderette in the parade of shops.
Brittania produced a redacted copy of landowner agreement during the POPLA appeal.
Shall I go ahead and post defence here when completed?
Many thanks.

beamerguy

Taliessa wrote: »

Update -
BW Legal have increased the original charge (invoice) by £60. I am being pursued as registered keeper.

Such a bad habit BwLegal has with the £60 fake add-on

Read this and you must make certain that the judge reads about this case
Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019


ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156