Two fines with NCP

Redx

so as driver your appeals will be based on

NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
any BPA CoP failures
not the same as BEAVIS
anpr issues

etc

a shame you didnt appeal as HIRER/KEEPER (day to day keeper), instead of DRIVER

because NCP were unlikely to have followed POFA2012 properly and got the hire docs as well as the name of the hirer from the lease company

POFA2012 would have been your best option, but by naming the driver you blew it

I have never known ANPR to calculate an exit fee on these peivate car parks, they hope that people mess it up, hence all the complications

Noree

You might find my thread useful.

Contact the hire company and tell them not to hand over any documentation to the Claimant. Hopefully they haven’t already.

Also contact the parking company and let them know you hire the vehicle to cut the lease company out of the loop.

POFA 2012, Schedule 4 paragraphs 13 & 14 are important to you.

My thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5640028/ngp-company-vehicle&page=5

ulukai

Redx I have a draft appeal knocked up, it's too big to post as well as all the links to various sources and me not being able to post with links, can I pm you the drive link or is it possible to get permission to post with links, or should I just make two posts with the links removed?


Thank you Noree

Redx

my PM ,s are switched off for obvious reasons , I refuse to give out bespoke advice

plus I do not click on links to files due to the threat of virus issues, its how they get spread on the internet , safety is paramount on the net these days

I would not have any links in your appeal, as you are expecting an assessor to click on them , if they are photos they should be embedded into your document

by all means copy and paste in as many posts as it takes, but do so from notepad, nor word or pdf files

ulukai

[FONT=Arial, serif]Latest draft: Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: xxx
POPLA Verification Code: xxx

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 parking charge notice (PCN) issued by NCP.

I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. No keeper liability
2. No evidence of landowner authority
3. Inadequate signs
4. Failure to comply with ICO code of practice
5. No evidence of period parked
6. BPA code of practice no compliance
7. ANPR neither reliable nor accurately
8. ANPR BPA breach
9. Lack of ANPR planning permission
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, serif]1. No Keeper Liability[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]
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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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."
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]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. 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 authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorizes 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). 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 authorization 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.


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

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.

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.

See the sign from the 'Beavis case' as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

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. 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, for instance at the entrance the main sign for the car park is at such an awkward angle with such small lettering as you enter it is impossible to from a distance or close up read the whole sign from a van


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 a font size guide.

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here on the website signazon with a sign letter height visibility chart.

''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 on ebay under outdoor dimensional sign/letter best viewing distance.

''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 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.


[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif] 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
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif] 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:
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 organizations
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 NCP 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 NCP 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.”

NCP has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, NCP 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.
[/FONT]

ulukai

5. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of
parking to which the notice relates;”
NCPs NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. At no stage does NCP explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012.
NCP uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the area to calculate their length of stay.
Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. NCP, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of NCP to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.
By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, NCP are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require NCP to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.


6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence
that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to
and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time
stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for
evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally
altered."
The NtK in question contains two close-up license plate images. The time and date stamp and license plate have been inserted into the underneath (but not part of) the images. In addition, the first image does not even show a vehicle, only an inserted image of the license plate and time stamp. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by NCPs ANPR. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and NCP claim was unauthorized.
I require NCP to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than just passing by. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, failing to produce such evidence would indicate the NCP has been using ANPR to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send NtK with the aim to extract penalty. Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.
Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require NCP to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.


7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

NCP’s NtK simply claims “that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. NCP states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site.
In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, POPLA please take note and bin your usual 'ANPR is generally OK' template because: The British Parking Association DOES NOT AUDIT the ANPR systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has NO WAY to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has NOT found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.
As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:
Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong
decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about
BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says:
"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined
your case which said:
"In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking
Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure
that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate"
You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA
decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us.
This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.
POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says:
''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working
order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held
and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR
system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.''
Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras
themselves.''
Secondly, ANPR data processing and/or system failure is well known, and is certainly inappropriate in a mixed retail and residential area, such as the location in question. The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws.
''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'' and they
specifically mention the flaw of assuming that 'drive in, drive out' events are parking
events. They state that: ''Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates
issued in this manner''.
Excessive use of ANPR 24/7 when such blanket coverage is overkill in terms of data processing, was also condemned by the BPA and the ICO
As POPLA can see from that, excessive use of ANPR is in fact, illegal, and no-one audits it except for the ICO when the public, or groups, make complaints.
POPLA cannot use your usual 'the BPA audits it' erroneous template which needs consigning to the bin. Please show the above email from Steve Clark, to your Lead Adjudicator.
Kindly stop assuming ANPR systems work, and expecting consumers to prove the impossible about the workings of a system over which they have no control but where independent and publicly available information about its inherent failings is very readily available.


8. 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.
NCP’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.


9. No Planning Permission from Newcastle City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search in Newcastle City Councils planning database does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for the Carliol Square car park 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 NCP 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 NCP 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 (Jan 2019).


Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully

Le_Kirk

You are advised against using GPEOL in your point 1. That has not been valid or viable since Beavis. Search the forum for GPEOL and see what others have said in up-to-date posts.

Umkomaas

A quick skim - sorry, but I no longer go through huge copy and paste appeals line by line as five years of proofreading and critiquing 5,000+ word university thesis equivalents have left my brains fried.

Your appeal point #1 (no GPEOL) is dead in the water and will cause you a loss if it remains in place. ParkingEye v Beavis in 2015 killed it. Remove.

Your key appeal points on Signage and Land Owner authority are right at the end of your appeal; promote them further up, they are much more important than planning permission for ANPR cameras. You need to order the appeal so that your strongest points come first.

Don't use links for assessors to access, rather embed images (as per Redx's advice earlier).

You need a bullet-point header list of the appeal points you are using at the opening of your appeal.

This all seems very rushed and doesn't look to be the strongest of POPLA appeals. If your NCP rejection was 21/12 you have much more time to do some further research across other appeals and see if you can sharpen this up.

One of the strongest points you could have made (a slam-dunk win at POPLA) would be no Keeper Liability, based on what noree says above on PoFA Schedule 4 paras 13/14. Do you have a copy of your initial appeal so we can see if there's any way of rescuing this?

As things stand, unless NCP give up based on having to deal with the volume of the appeal (but they do seem to have now developed a standard rebut template to avoid having to grind through long appeals), I don't hold out great hopes for winning at POPLA. Plus, of late, NCP seem to have become more successful at POPLA.

A couple of final points, you will need to send two separate appeals to POPLA, one for each parking charge. And don't forget, that an adverse POPLA decision is not binding on the motorist (but I understand the possible complications here with the hire company and your employer).

Redx

as above

move 8 and 9 to 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 after total deletion of gpeol in your point 1 , which was killed off in the beavis case over 2 years ago


make point 1 no keeper liability if that is true


add a bullet point menu, numbered and with each sub-header as its main title for each and every number

this is so you see the numbered menu first, then the list of appeal points matching the number, so an assessor can look for a particular point and home in on it, make it easier for them to sort the wheat from the chaff

and you need to use it twice, once for each popla number as Umkomaas says, its not one appeal for 2 numbers, its 2 separate appeals

also take onboard any other advice by Umkomaas above as well

I actually gave you the points to look for and add in a running order, so your appeal should try to follow what I said earlier, the best points come first

ulukai

I have updated my appeal, there are images still to add in, could you take another look please?


Once again thanks for all the advice and help, very much appreciated.