Britannia parking popla

Lgaaa

Sorry for being simple but how do I word this to popla?
Thanks in advance

Redx

find & read any "golden ticket" popla appeal from this year (2018) and copy it, then adapt it to fit your own case


start by looking at the examples in post #3 of the NEWBIES THREAD which I did tell you in my post #2 reply above and you seem to have ignored


ie:- most of the work has already been done for you, by other members

Lgaaa

Britannia Parking Group. sent me, as keeper of the vehicle *******, a parking charge notice (PCN) for a parking event which took place on 24/10/2018. This alleged that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system (ANPR) for “either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer for longer than permitted”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was sent via post.
I have contested this case with Britannia Parking Group, PCN reference ******, but they have emailed to me (dated 05 December 2018) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference *********.


As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper does not include any details of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). 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.
2. The NTK does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2, 5 & 6) of POFA - therefore no keeper liability can apply.
3. 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.
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
5. No evidence of reliability of ANPR camera system.


Please see below for details;



1) The operator has not provided a POFA compliant NTK or shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.


A copy of the NTK is appended; it has no mention of POFA 2012. At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (and I am not obliged to do so).

2) In any case, the NTK is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Britannia Parking have failed to mention POFA 2012 in their notice and in any case to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

“The notice must be given by (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to me as Registered Keeper arrived 20 days after the alleged event, on november 12th.
Britannia Parkings own documentation shows that the event to which they refer occurred on the 24th october 2018 and the date issued was the 9th november 2018. There is no evidence that the PCN was actually posted on that date.
I can honestly confirm that the notice was not received until tuesday, 13th november 2018.
POFA 2012 assumes the notice to keeper to be delivered on the 2nd working day after the day on which it was posted. The 2nd working day is Tuesday 13th november. Hence the receipt of the notice was 20 days after the date issued and therefore beyond the 14 days set out in sub-paragraph 9 (5).
POFA 2012 states in sub-paragraph 9 (6) “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”


3) 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.


Please note that the time of the alleged event was during the hours of darkness.
The layout and positioning of the signs fail to meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice;
Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, 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”.
Unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract as Mr Beavis did.


4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.


In their template documentation, Britannia parking state that they have authority to operate and issue PCN’s on all of its sites from the landowner. This must be proved.
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 provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated, 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).
Parking company 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 and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. In addition, 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 on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
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.
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.

5) No evidence of ANPR reliability - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.


Britannia Parking has provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
Britannia Parking has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.


How does this look?

KeithP

Point 1) in your 'contents' list is really two items, the first of which is no point at all. There is nothing that says a NtK must mention POFA - just it must mention thise things that POFA says they must mention.

Make 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 a separate point using the template from post three of the NEWBIES.

Why is your signs point so short?
There is a lengthy template in the NEWBIES thread headed

Signage (I deliberately go to town in this section, don't cut it down!):

Lgaaa

Britannia Parking Group. sent me, as keeper of the vehicle *******, a parking charge notice (PCN) for a parking event which took place on 24/10/2018. This alleged that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system (ANPR) for “either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer for longer than permitted”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was sent via post.
I have contested this case with Britannia Parking Group, PCN reference ******, but they have emailed to me (dated 05 December 2018) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference ************.


As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper does not include any details of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
2. 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.
3. The NTK does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2, 5 & 6) of POFA - therefore no keeper liability can apply.
4. 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.
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
6. No evidence of reliability of ANPR camera system.


Please see below for details;



1) The operator has not provided a POFA compliant NTK or shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.


A copy of the NTK is appended; it has no mention of POFA 2012. At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (and I am not obliged to do so).

2) 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. 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.''

3) In any case, the NTK is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Britannia Parking have failed to mention POFA 2012 in their notice and in any case to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

“The notice must be given by (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to me as Registered Keeper arrived 20 days after the alleged event, on november 12th.
Britannia Parkings own documentation shows that the event to which they refer occurred on the 24th october 2018 and the date issued was the 9th november 2018. There is no evidence that the PCN was actually posted on that date.
I can honestly confirm that the notice was not received until tuesday, 13th november 2018.
POFA 2012 assumes the notice to keeper to be delivered on the 2nd working day after the day on which it was posted. The 2nd working day is Tuesday 13th november. Hence the receipt of the notice was 20 days after the date issued and therefore beyond the 14 days set out in sub-paragraph 9 (5).
POFA 2012 states in sub-paragraph 9 (6) “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”


4) 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 minuscule font 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 nor 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:

/imgur.com/a/AkMCN

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:

.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

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:

-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''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:

.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''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:

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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.


5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.


In their template documentation, Britannia parking state that they have authority to operate and issue PCN’s on all of its sites from the landowner. This must be proved.
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 provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated, 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).
Parking company 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 and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. In addition, 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 on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
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.
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.

6) No evidence of ANPR reliability - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.


Britannia Parking has provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
Britannia Parking has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.

hows that?

LoneStarState

OP

The second paragraph of Point 1) talks of "At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle"

You might want to change the parking company mentioned to Britannia.

Lgaaa

Done, Thank you!

Le_Kirk

It is recommended that any links you plan to use are actually embedded in the appeal, as this removes the possibility that a POPLA assessor won't bother to follow the link!

Lgaaa

Just a quick update:

Dear **** ***********



Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



An Appeal has been opened with the reference *************.



Britannia Parking Group have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.



Yours sincerely



POPLA Team



Thank you all for your help!

Redx

Well done, they turned tail and fled

Do not keep racking them up, or the odds are against you