PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Quentin

From what you say giving a dead number is the only way it will be accepted

(You would never want to speak to them!)

Have you tried sending it without any phone details?

Cornerhog82

Quentin wrote: »

From what you say giving a dead number is the only way it will be accepted

(You would never want to speak to them!)

Have you tried sending it without any phone details?

A single digit did the trick.
submission confirmation appeared then vanished. No email confirmation of receipt of appeal.

Coupon-mad

I always put in zeros for the phone number at 1st appeal or POPLA stage.

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I always put in zeros for the phone number at 1st appeal or POPLA stage.

Reply received back from the appeals department confirming receipt of the appeal.

They make reference to the fact there are 3 other PCN recorded are they to be appealed.

Is it best to ignore this attempt a PPC attempt to engage with RK, and proceed with an individual appeal for each PCN through the online appeals process? Therefore making them work and ensuring they accept each appeal?

Quentin

Yes appeal each one separately

Cornerhog82

RK has received 2 appeal rejections, via email.

Are these legitimate? I understood form the first appeal template that all PCNs should be dealt with in one document and by mail not via a return email. POPLA ref provided on each.

nosferatu1001

Of course its legit. Youc annot compel them to use any specific method.

Get cracking. Rejection was expected so your POPLA appeal should be basically ready to go.

Cornerhog82

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Of course its legit. Youc annot compel them to use any specific method.

Get cracking. Rejection was expected so your POPLA appeal should be basically ready to go.

Is reference to the occupant of the car having a permit to park there, albeit on another vehicle, included at POPLA stage?

KeithP

Cornerhog82 wrote: »

Is reference to the occupant of the car having a permit to park there, albeit on another vehicle, included at POPLA stage?

That's not going to win any PoPLA appeal.

Read post #3 of the NEWBIES thread to discover how to create a winning PoPLA appeal.

Cornerhog82

Draft POPLA appeal (REDACTED)

Feedback appreciated. It appears a number of points argued on other PCN appeals seem well covered by the PPC.

Appeal re POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxx v Care Parking

Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxx
POPLA ref: xxxxxxxxx

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated REDACTED DATE acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Care Parking – was submitted and acknowledged on REDACTED DATE but subsequently rejected by a letter dated REDACTED DATE. 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. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

2. 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

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

4. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

5. Ambiguous and unclear signage at entrance to the car park and throughout the site.

6. Amount demanded is a penalty, is punitive and the sum of the charge is not clearly displayed on the entrance signs to the car park

7. The operator has not provided conclusive evidence that the individual they are pursuing is in fact the driver


1. 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, 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 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).
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 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 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 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.

2. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR request process, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach

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 found at: https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
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 organisations 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 Care Parking 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 Care Parking must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.
It therefore follows that I require Care Parking 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.”
Care Parking has not explicitly stated on their signage the keepers right and guidelines on how to make a Subject Access Request (SAR). Care Parking’s NtK and rejection letter do not explicitly state the information that would need to be supplied with an SAR 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.

3. 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 are not part of the images. In addition, there are two images of a vehicle from distance, again with no time or date stamp included within the image. Any vehicle passing by can potentially be captured by Care Parking’s ANPR. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident that Care Parking claim was unauthorized.

Care parking states in its rejection letter “Photographic evidence supporting the issue of this PCN can be viewed by following the link and entering your vehicle registration and PCN reference number; http://pay.careparking.co.uk. Copies of these photographs are available on request.” I contest that neither the images in the NtK or on the Care Parking website in any way show clear evidence of the vehicle parked at the location. I therefore require Care Parking 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. Failing to produce such evidence would indicate that Care Parking has been using ANPR to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and sending NtK with the aim to extract a penalty. Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.

A BBC investigation (27 Apr 2018) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327)
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 Care Parking to produce strong evidence, audited by a qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial
objective.




4. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

Care Parking’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle entered REDACTED SITE NAME at XXX and departed at XXX. Care Parking 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 I would suggest you disregard your 'ANPR is generally OK' template because of the following:

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 aims to prevent POPLA assuming that such audits take place:

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 area, such as the location in question.
The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/ANPR

''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 Care Parking) 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, which 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. 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.

5. Ambiguous and unclear signage at entrance to the car park and throughout the site. Amount demanded is a penalty, is punitive and the sum of the charge is not clearly displayed on the entrance signs to the car park

The amount that has been demanded by Care Parking is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear nor ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage
cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

The below image (image 1) shows the Care Parking sign present at the entrance to the REDACTED SITE NAME. There is no information clearly displayed on this sign that advises the total sum of the parking charge.

















Image 1

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.

Moreover, this particular example compares unfavourably with the “ParkingEye Ltd vs. Beavis” case, which focussed on specific facts relating solely to the specific car park considered, and in particular, the signs at said site.

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was detailed on the relevant sign in a very large font, with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, concise and unambiguous. There were “large lettering” signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
The image below, taken from the case paperwork, shows the entrance sign in question:




Image 2: sign cited in the Beavis case

The UK Supreme Court was keen to point out that their decision related to that particular car park, and the facts of the signs only, in their response in 2015:

Parking charge ‘neither extravagant nor unconscionable [...] taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices.


However, in the example under consideration now, the REDACTED SITE NAME facility does not exhibit this best practice, far from it.

The sign at the entrance is unremarkable, and certainly doesn’t strike the observer as constituting full parking terms. The wording of the sign is illegible unless within a few inches of the sign, which is significant given that the driver is expected to read the sign prior to parking and leaving their vehicle.

Image 1 above is a photograph of the car park entrance sign, found at the REDACTED SITE NAME site’s entrance. It is clear that the sign is inadequate, nor is the print at the bottom of the sign legible upon entry to the car park

Image 3 below is a photograph of one of the internal car park signs at REDACTED SITE NAME


Image 3 – Car park sign

The sign is rendered in a tiny font on a white background, so unlike the typography examined in “Beavis,” the sign does not catch the eye. It is wholly unreasonable to expect a driver to pull up their vehicle and attempt to read further in a bid to try and discover any possible parking terms and charges, especially when the sole purpose for visiting this car park would be to visit the retail units found therein.

Sign design is covered in a multitude of places. Here is just one example:

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

This site states that as a general rule of thumb, “every 1 inch of letter height provides 10 feet of readability with the best impact”.

The sign in Image 3 displays a significant amount of lettering which appears to be no more than a couple of centimetres high, if that.

Returning to the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), it states that:


“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

“Adequate notice of the parking charge” is mandatory under both the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, yet the entrance sign indicated clearly does not mention the parking charge.

6. The operator has not provided conclusive evidence that the individual they are pursuing is in fact the driver
I request that the operator provides comprehensive evidence that, I, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, was in fact the driver of the vehicle who has been accused of contravening their so called terms and conditions of parking.

Based on the points outlined above I hereby request that my appeal is upheld and the Parking Charge Notice issued by Care Parking is cancelled forthwith.