Britannia Parking - NTK sent in wrong name

MistyZ

Is there anything in the PPC's evidence .... or anything lacking in their evidence .... that you can pounce on more easily?

Thinking mainly of the landowner contract, if 'no landowner authority' was in the POPLA appeal yet they have not shown the contract or if they've produced an out of date one etc. then you have an easy point to respond to.

darkwarrior

It does show the payment made, POPLA just ignored it even though I noted it in my response to their evidence.

The signage is pretty intact.

The landowner agreement is from May last year, but is to Brit Park LTD. It also authorises installation of ANPR.

Their copies of correspondence show the original NTK in the wrong name, with later correspondence using the correct name.

Coupon-mad

Copy the POPLA decision here but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add at least ten paragraph breaks to it...please.

darkwarrior

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor Name James Keeling
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: “Failed to make a valid payment.”

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a number of grounds of appeal with a lengthy explanation of each. However, they have provided a helpful numbered summary, which is as follows:

1) The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage. 2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3) 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
4) 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
5) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance
6) Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
7) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
8) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
9) No Planning Permission from Oldham Town Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage
10) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
11) No parking contravention occurred.
12) The Notice to Keeper was issued incorrectly, to a person not known to have any connection with the vehicle.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified.

As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, including those highlighted by the appellant throughout their appeal, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge. The appellant states that no contract could be formed as the signage is insufficient. When entering onto a private car park, 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. Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice (The Code) explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states: The operator has provided pictorial evidence of the signage, which states:” Pay on arrival...Restrictions and charges apply at all times to all vehicles…Please enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff.

£100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.” Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the signs on the site were sufficiently conspicuous, legible and clear in their communication of the terms and conditions of the car park.

The operator has included a site map and provided photographic evidence to establish the locality of signage throughout the car park. Upon review of this evidence, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to form a contract with the motorist and meets all relevant sections of The Code.

The appellant states that they do not believe the operator has the authority to pursue charges or form contracts at this car park. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (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 witness statement, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant states that 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.

As the driver has not been identified by the appellant as the keeper, the operator is pursuing the keeper via POFA. As such, the identity of the driver is not relevant. The appellant states that the operator does not adhere to the 'ICO Code of Practice' in respect of the ANPR cameras and their usage. Any compliance with the CIO Code of practice or any section of GDPR would be matters for the ICO and cannot form part of POPLA’s decision.

However, it is noted that the signage does state “Car park monitored by ANPR systems” and that the small print does give further details of how these systems are used. The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a reasonable grace period. The Code, in section 13.2, states: “13.2 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.”

Although this 10 minute period is not exhaustive, depending on the individual circumstances, Having considered the circumstances surrounding the contravention, including the site size, the appellant’s description of the circumstances etc, I am not happy that a grace period beyond the minimum required is appropriate in this instance. The appellant states that the operator has not provided evidence that the car was parked, rather than the driver taking time to read the terms and conditions. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, entering the car park at 15:34, and exiting at 15:51, totalling a stay of 16 minutes. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. The appellant states that the operator has not proven that the parking contravention took place, and that the ANPR images are inaccurate.

The ANPR images show that the vehicle was on the site for 16 minutes, and its site data shows that there was no payment made for vehicle registration M155 SHX. As such, by showing that the vehicle entered the site for 16 minutes without making a payment, they have evidenced that a contravention took place. Whilst I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. The appellant states that no Planning Permission from Oldham Town Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage. Planning permissions are a matter for the local planning authority and do not factor on whether the PCN has been issued correctly.

As such, this point has no relevance to the appeal. The appellant states their name was misspelt on the notice. However, the operator has addressed the notice to the same details it received from the DVLA. Furthermore, the appellant has provided no evidence to support their statement. I will therefore assume the details on the PCN are correct. Upon consideration of the evidence available to me, it is clear that the appellant failed to make a valid payment for their full and correct vehicle registration and has breached the terms and conditions. Therefore, they have accepted the potential consequence of becoming liable for a PCN. Accordingly, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

darkwarrior

I emailed the BPA about what I feel is an inappropriate practice of having it go this far when their own data says the License Plate was recorded. They said that the License Plate was possibly recorded incorrectly, ignoring that all of the license plates are redacted in their machine data.

Honestly laws around this can't come soon enough, it's all a scam.

rachity

How about CoP 13.4?

13.4You 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.

darkwarrior

That's what I argued, ten minutes at the start and ten minutes at the end. The POPLA representative said:

Although this 10 minute period is not exhaustive, depending on the individual circumstances, Having considered the circumstances surrounding the contravention, including the site size, the appellant’s description of the circumstances etc, I am not happy that a grace period beyond the minimum required is appropriate in this instance. The appellant states that the operator has not provided evidence that the car was parked, rather than the driver taking time to read the terms and conditions. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, entering the car park at 15:34, and exiting at 15:51, totalling a stay of 16 minutes. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. The appellant states that the operator has not proven that the parking contravention took place, and that the ANPR images are inaccurate.

darkwarrior

Neutral bump for advice.

Umkomaas

darkwarrior wrote: »

Neutral bump for advice.

If you think you have a case to complain to POPLA, do so to the Lead Adjudicator - John Gallagher. It would need to be a procedural error, but of late they have closed ranks rapidly, with rarely any acceptance of error on their part.

Beyond that it’s seeing what Britannia do next. They have recently become litigious, via BW Legal. If you get a court claim, come back on this thread to let us know.

Meantime, read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which guides you through dealing with a court case. Forewarned is forearmed. Be ready and briefed up for them.

Coupon-mad

darkwarrior wrote: »

The ticket was long gone, but they added a Machine Data document which has the first 5 characters of the license plate on it.

I would send Britannia an email asking whether they are alleging a 'minor keying error' (given the fact that their own POPLA evidene showed the payment made against an almost full VRN entry) and if so, why have they not cancelled the PCN at source given the BPA instruction regarding minor keypad errors, as published in the POPLA Annual Report 2018.

And as for the machine repair records and why the missing key wasn't working.
(i.e. you are alleging the missed digits were the fault of a sticky key, not any omission by the driver).