CEL Appeal unsuccessful..POPLA stage help!

bill1984y

Hi all.
I received a PCN. The car was parked in a a car park for a local wellbeing centre from 10:51 until 11:07am as the driver was waiting to pick up somebody from the gym. Normally, when the vehicle is parked there they have to go in and enter their vehicle registration into the system. Obviously, in this case, the driver did not leave. Also, the driver has a blue badge and well, the only two disabled parking bays were taken, so they parked next to the closest available bay.
I sent off a template appeal and received a unsuccessful letter from CEL. I now need to appeal to POPLA. Help would be much widely appreciated as i am now stuck as to what to type here.

Redx

the driver needs to register the vehicle if they do this again, or stay LESS THAN 10 MINUTES, or both

and the BB holder needs to read the blue booklet, especially the part about not applying on private land, so the BB aspect has no relevance on that car park

The BB holder may be covered by the EA2010, but thats a different issue

the BB does not form a protective "bubble" around a vehicle making it impervious to parking notices

post #3 of the NEWBIES faq sticky thread will help with a popla appeal which is based on legal technicalities

your POPLA appeal as KEEPER will be based on the following legal points (if any)

NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
any POFA2012 failures
any BPA CoP failures
any NTK failures
not the same as BEAVIS
anpr issues

etc

Coupon-mad

The car was parked in a a car park for a local wellbeing centre from 10:51 until 11:07am

You don't know that's the case; those timings are only from two unsynchronised cameras. Does the driver have a dashcam or Google location on their phone, to check that day and see whether in fact the car was there that long?

Many people have proved ANPR wrong.

One point should be that the driver wanted to park in a disabled bay due to their needs (Blue Badge shown to POPLA as evidence) but waited and both the Disabled bays remained taken, so they left as they were unable to access the facility. Then expand that this is not mitigation, this is a fact about lack of accessibility of the site, and in these circumstances, any grace period applicable to the able bodied population at large cannot apply to a disabled person who was restricted to where they could park.

Also, beside the disabled bays there are no signs with full t&cs, contrary to the BPA CoP. This is bound to be true, BTW.

The the usual template POPLA points.

bill1984y

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You don't know that's the case; those timings are only from two unsynchronised cameras. Does the driver have a dashcam or Google location on their phone, to check that day and see whether in fact the car was there that long?

Many people have proved ANPR wrong.

One point should be that the driver wanted to park in a disabled bay due to their needs (Blue Badge shown to POPLA as evidence) but waited and both the Disabled bays remained taken, so they left as they were unable to access the facility. Then expand that this is not mitigation, this is a fact about lack of accessibility of the site, and in these circumstances, any grace period applicable to the able bodied population at large cannot apply to a disabled person who was restricted to where they could park.

Also, beside the disabled bays there are no signs with full t&cs, contrary to the BPA CoP. This is bound to be true, BTW.

The the usual template POPLA points.

Thank You. I will use these as valid points. Do you know where i can find a suitable template for POPLA?

Coupon-mad

You know where! In the NEWBIES thread!

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

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

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

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

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

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

Umkomaas

bill1984y wrote: »

Thank You. I will use these as valid points. Do you know where i can find a suitable template for POPLA?

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3

bill1984y

Any tips on improving this or will this be sufficient?


POPLA Ref xxx
Civil Enforcement Parking Charge Notice no xxxx

A notice to keeper was issued on DATE and received by me, the registered keeper of xxx for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at xxx. The car in question was parked from 10:51:52 until 11:07:10. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.


1) failure to comply with Equality act 2010
2This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates
3)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
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 The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
7 The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.
the driver wanted to park in a disabled bay due to their needs but waited and both the Disabled bays remained taken, so they left as they were unable to access the facility. Then expand that this is not mitigation, this is a fact about lack of accessibility of the site, and in these circumstances, any grace period applicable to the able bodied population at large cannot apply to a disabled person who was restricted to where they could park.


1 The driver of the vehicle had wanted to park in a disabled bay due to their needs (Blue badge user) and waited but both the ONLY disabled bays remained taken, so they had to leave as they were unable to access the facility. This is not mitigation, but this is a fact about lack of accessibility of the site and therefore a failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 as the CEL have failed to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments, as in these specific conditions, any grace periods applicable to the able bodied person at large cannot appkly to a disabled person who was restricted to where they could park.

The Equality Act 2010 is a very powerful piece of legislation which companies ignore at their peril.
The Equality Act isn't guidance. It's law in its own right, with fines for service providers who breach it.
It appears that you don’t understand the Equality Act 2010, i will also be complaining to, and pointing this out to my MP and Local media services such as the consumer programme X-RAY.
It is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), be put out of business.
Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct
The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.
Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.
All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.


2) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates.
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 must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Civil Enforcement LTD (CEL) have failed 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 myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 3 weeks after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’ it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’
‘or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that CEL have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

I have taken these middle points from the templates

6 The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

CEL evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements
of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking
to which the notice relates.”
Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working
25
I require CEL to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked,
calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case(it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (10 minutes and 48 seconds apart), it is vital that CEL produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

7 The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Tradng 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. ‘Civil Enforcement LTD’ 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.

The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue:
(insert link)
The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

Since I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. As Euro Car Parks are relying on images that do not show the vehicle being parked, this could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for more than 3 hours.
The provision of the images does not indicate that the vehicle was parked for that specific time. The car park in question is known to be busy, and as such the vehicle in question may have been waiting for a suitable space. Euro Car Parks should therefore provide strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the times stated, and not merely in the car park. They should also provide strict proof that no double visit occurred.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Euro Car Parks have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. As stated in the point above, since the signage was so poor this has not been clearly brought to the attention of the driver. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Euro Car Parks 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 my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Euro Car Parks to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is unreliable.
there are only two disabled bays available at the site. The driver of the vehicle wanted to access the building but was unable to due to both disability bays being occupied at the time.

KeithP

It appears that you don’t understand the Equality Act 2010, i will also be complaining to, and pointing this out to my MP and Local media services such as the consumer programme X-RAY.

Are you really planning to include that in an appeal to PoPLA?

I don't think that is wise.


You tell us you have take your point 7 from the templates.

The Inadequate signs template is much much longer than that.


Both you contents list and your substantive points beyond point 5 seem to drift into a muddled mess.
For example, your ANPR point and double dipping seem to mixed between points 6 and 7.

What is the sentence starting "Then expand that this is not mitigation..." doing there? Lifted straight from post #3 above, I suggest.

bill1984y

KeithP wrote: »

Are you really planning to include that in an appeal to PoPLA?

I don't think that is wise.


You tell us you have take your point 7 from the templates.

The Inadequate signs template is much much longer than that.

i can definitely take that out. Your right the inadequate signs portion was a little trimmed. i shall take the whole template and make it longer. thank you for your comments.

KeithP

Please see also my later edits.