STARPARK/Phone and Pay/Civil Enforcement LTD

KeithP

Adrian1999 wrote: »

What are my options now?

Clearly you appeal to PoPLA. Your only other option is to pay what they are asking and no-one here would recommend that.

You need to be reading post #3 of the NEWBIES thread to discover how to create a winning PoPLA appeal.

Quentin

@ OP


You do need to ensure that you remain anonymous on this forum


The PPCS monitor here and can use posts in your thread against you


Your OP photo does contain unique info that will allow the PPC to identify you, and needs removing


If you have used your real name in your forum name then you need to get MSE to change it to something truly anonymous

Coupon-mad

Adrian1999 wrote: »

My appeal has been unsuccessful; a POPLA verification code has been provided. The allocated time for internal appeals procedure has ended.

My time allowance has been extended to allow payment of the original "Reduced fee".

What are my options now?

Reading the NEWBIES thread again as you seem to have missed the dedicated POPLA section.

Adrian1999

I am in the process of putting together my appeal to POPLA. Am I right in putting my draft here for a quick check to see if everything is in order?

If so, what would be the best format, as a whole document through google drive/drop box, or just the main text, copy into a post here?

I am close to POPLA appeal deadline (17th of June), and aim to have it submitted today/tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

The main text here is best, and if you are using NEWBIES thread templates unaltered, just put the headings & say 'this is the 'no landowner authority' point from the NEWBIES thread post #3' etc.

Adrian1999

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The main text here is best, and if you are using NEWBIES thread templates unaltered, just put the headings & say 'this is the 'no landowner authority' point from the NEWBIES thread post #3' etc.

Since going back to the car park, and actually appreciate the state of it. I've gone to town. I will submit as soon as possible.

Many thanks to all for your help, definitely improved my confidence, understanding, distain for private parking companies and their practices.

Adrian1999

POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxx

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxxxxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – xxxxxxx – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xxxxxxx and rejected via letter dated xxxxxxxx. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned, 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 upon entry to the car park

2. The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA & is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis

3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

4. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

5. No evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

6. The signs Fail to clearly inform of the enforcement of ANPR and to clearly warn the drivers of the intended purpose of ANPR data

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


1. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned, 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 upon entry to the car park

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: http://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:

Figure 1: Beavis sign

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.
Figure 2: Approach into car park from Northwood street, viewable from a vehicle. Here parking information is unremarkable, and mostly illegible; made to fit a significant amount of information into a smaller space reducing the legibility of the sign, and allocated to a single sign post

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, this initial sign does not clearly mention the parking charge. 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.


Figure 3: Forward view of car park from point of which the vehicle was stationary, it is clear signs are sporadically placed, obscured, hidden and sparsely placed around the parameter of the car park.

Figure 4: View from directly in front of potential car space, on day of supposed contravention
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.



Figure 5: Single sign post found at entry into car park, as previously shown from vehicle in figure 2. Picture taken at ground level from 1 metre.


The single sign (figure 5) with posted parking information upon entry into the car park from 1 metre; illegible and unremarkable indication the purposed usage of data information, and indication the ANPR system enforcement. This does not specifically present the car parks terms and conditions, neither does it present the cost of entry and its corresponding allocated time to park.

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 signswere 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:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

http://www.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.''

''...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.

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.


Figure 6: Only sign indicating potential requirements & conditions of parking near the entrance, can be found on the opposite sign of sign shown in figure2.

Referring to figure 6, this is the potential view from a stationary vehicle upon the exit of the car park, which presents requirements for parking. It is clear, again, the text is illegible due to sizing and height from, again in comparison to signage shown in figure 2.

The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix sets the requirements for entrance signs, I dispute their failure to fulfil requirements set by the BPA, specifically:

1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.

In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead, it is not readable and understandable at all times; nor is ANPR enforcement information available or indicated anywhere else in the parking area. It is not directly lit nor does it benefit from lighting used for the parking area. The only signage is placed at the direct entrance, requiring the driver to stop prior to entry to be made aware of ANPR usage, thus blocking Northwood street which runs past the entrance of the car park (figure 6).

Figure 6: Street view of car park entrance

Figure 7: Street view of car park entrance from alternative side
The only sign which refers to ANPR usage (as shown in figure 2 & 3) is placed less than one car length distance from where a car would turn into the car park from a one-way street, shown in figure 6 & 7. This single sign is angled directly outwards from the car park, and thus at 90 degrees from approaching traffic. As a result, would it not be appropriate to have angled signage, on both sides of the entrance; when typically vehicles in the UK have drivers sat on the right-hand side.

It is therefore suggested once again that Figures 6 & 7 serve to reinforce the earlier point made (in relation to Figures 2 and 3) regarding non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

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), in the same lighting conditions. 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.
In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:

“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”

Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Civil Enforcement Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated.

Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

When the driver arrived at the car park it would be almost impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (on the passenger side of the vehicle, not easily visible from drivers side), potentially invisible after dark (not lit, too high to be lit by virtue of reflecting any vehicle headlights, particularly from a moving vehicle entering the car park from a 30MPH road), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.




2. The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA & is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis

This situation is an 'ordinary' contract, a simple consumer/trader transaction with a ticket for parking being purchased in good faith and produced by a faulty set of machines and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position.

At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment in 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' it was held:''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.” ''

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14.
“…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty;''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary contracts with a transaction and tariff:
“Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''
This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company:
''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.’'

Clearly a charge out of all proportion to the tariff - which was paid in any case for the time actually parked and the driver left before expiry of the ticket - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man, regardless of whether in the small print, the sign may have said somewhere 'enter the full registration'. A huge charge arising under the excuse of such a minor term is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA, enacted after the Beavis parking event) supports a consumer's position: - Under Schedule 2 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' it includes: ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

As this charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.

Adrian1999

3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Civil Enforcement Ltds Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.
The Notice to Keeper states:
“...On 25 April 2019 the vehicle: xxxxxx entered xxxxxx, at xxxxxx and departed at xxxx on xxxxx.”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Civil Enforcement Ltds own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed. 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 order.

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:
''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.''

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:
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

''...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''.

In this case, as the driver drove in and briefly stopped where there are no signs or
bays at all (not in any retail area, but at a private residence not signed as being
managed by Civil Enforcement LTD) the ANPR system has indeed failed and the operator has
breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data from their
System. 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:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/excessive-use-of-anpr-cameras-for-enforcement

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.
Civil Enforcement Ltd is put to strict proof that the system has not failed visitors to the car parking site. 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.

4. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the
end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not
normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and
conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having
had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you
must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be
bound by your parking contract.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“You 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.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) and (13.4) clearly state that the Grace Period to
enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst (13.2) and
(13.4) do not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never
entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace
period each should apply to (13.1) BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association
(BPA):

“...The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the
motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply
with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

“...No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but
another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which xxxxxxxx) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

a) The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage
throughout the car park in question (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice
18.2 and 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to
entering into a contract.

b) There is no marked parking bay through out the venue which causes
confusion to the applicability of the Civil Enforcement Ltd’s contract, that was never
entered into in the first place.

c) The lengthiness of xxxxxx’s signage (in terms of word count) all
written in tiny text the across of the sign (refer to in section 1; figures 2-5).

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
Locate a sign indicating entrance
Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness
Decipher the confusing information being presented
Decide not to park and therefore not entering into a contract; or make correct arrangements to pay for parking either be through ticket machine which in this car park only takes cash; making the potential driver at the time seek alternative means to pay for an allocated parking period, such as contacting the electronic phone parking service.
Return to car and safely leave the car park

Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus
ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the
assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking
alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not
accept the conditions of the parking contract.” Details of the case can be found here.


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.
Furthermore, 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;”

Civil Enforcement Ltd’s NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at [xxxxxx].” The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered [xxxxxx] at [xxxxx] and departed at [xxxxxxx]”. At no stage do Civil Enforcement Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012. Civil Enforcement Ltd NtK states “we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Civil Enforcement ltd 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, Civil Enforcement Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require Civil Enforcement Ltd 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. The signs Fail to clearly inform of the enforcement of ANPR and to clearly warn the drivers of the intended purpose of ANPR data

The signs fail to clearly 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.
Civil Enforcement Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because of this car
Parks failure to provide adequate signage of ANPR enforcement and what the ANPR data would be used for; there is only one individual sign as shown in section 1 figure 2 & 5 which present indicate the presence of ANPR. Furtrher failing to allow appropriate grace period required to read and understand set terms and conditions for parking, as outlined in section 4.

Failing to identify its commercial intent, contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. There is no information that directly indicates that these camera images would be used in order to pursue a parking charge of £100, or a reduced “discounted rate” of £60.
In circumstances where the terms of notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.
7. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
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 authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP 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:

The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement”

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75892503#Comment_75892503

Adrian1999

Coupon-mad wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75892503#Comment_75892503

Not entirely sure what you're getting at.. do you mean just scrap mine and copy all the link informed exactly..?

I have added 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

Getting a bit nervous, want to submit ASAP..

Is the "Not relevant land" applicable to my case? As I have already put No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
- Otherwise, if I do put not relevant land section in, is it word for word as presented here? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75892503#Comment_75892503 and then adjust to my case as required.

I have also noted your view on the Introduction, which I have now removed.

Getting a bit nervous, wanted to submit my appeal ASAP