Barnet A&E ParkingEye

samee15

POPLA Appeal:
My most favourable arguments so far. Note I actually put the PE requests in red, bold and underline for the adjudicator as it's reams of text to read I want to ensure they don't miss it. Over the top maybe..


1) Unclear, inadequate, illegible and mixed signage at the entrance and throughout the site

When entering the sprawling site, there are multiple routes for a vehicle to take along with a multitude of signs with different parking terms and I put ParkingEye to strict proof of how the entrance to the hospital appears from a car, entering from any available direction. As ParkingEye is issuing a parking charge on the basis that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, the burden of proof rests with ParkingEye in showing that a contravention of the terms and conditions took place.

The appellant submits a satellite image annotated in blue with all the possible entry and exit points a driver in search of parking could take.

XXPICXX


There is nothing about VRNs being captured by ANPR at the point of entry; nothing about how the ANPR data will be used to add unknown 'overstay' parking time. So a person driving through the large site in search of the most appropriate parking, could be bound by many different terms such as the one where they are allowed 20 minutes free parking.

The Appellant submits the journey a driver could have taken to where they will witness signage from both the Operator and the NHS directly contradicting each other.

First the driver will see signage stating ‘Ambulance & Drop offs’

XXPICXX

Driving just a bit further down then will approach the bend, where they will unfortunately not see the entry signage due to its poor (convenient) location behind the ‘IN’ sign. But the ParkingEye camera is located on the same pole as the terms sign meaning a VRN would be captured 6 meters before they’re at eye distance with the terms sign.

XXPICXX

Until the driver fully turns into this site where they will finally be met with a ParkingEye entry sign, designed in the same blue colour scheme as NHS. Which is unfortunately not lit or legible during dusk.

XXPICXX

The entry sign does not clearly or legibly identify who is managing the land. Directly contravening BPA’s CoP Appendix B Entrance Sign:

“Managed by is required”

Further into the site once the camera has definitely captured the vehicle, the driver is finally met with the terms signage which holds tiny font used across all signage to communicate the terms of the contract each sign has an average 27 words per line, totalling over 300 words to read in order to review the terms. With this volume of text at font likely no larger than 0.4 when read at height, it’s not unconscionable to require 15 minutes to just read this sign for someone with ordinary vision in daylight.

XXPICXX

BPA CoP Appendix B requires members to ensure:

“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.”

It is to be noted that the vehicle was captured by ANPR camera at dusk where the lighting is shrouded rendering signage, unfortunately the lighting source offered above the sign flickers on and off therefore is not fit for purpose for a reader. Reading the terms appears an impossible mission to achieve unless one had carried a magnifying glass with them.

It is to be noted the ParkingEye identification at the top in blue font on a similar dark blue background, colour schemes which is also used by the NHS. A confusing and appalling selection of colouring to clearly distinguish who manages the land.

BPA CoP, Appendix B states:

“There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background.”

The appellant further demonstrates using GoogleStreetView imagery how up close a motorist must be in order to just see the ‘ambulance only’, entrapping the motorist into receiving a ticket by merely attempting to read the signage.

Which directly contravenes BPA CoP clause 9.5:
“You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of noncompliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel”


XXPICXX


It should noted be the non ambulance vehicles at the site even in the google maps imagery, which only further demonstrates how utterly insufficient the signage is for drivers.

Due to their high position, the barely legible size of the small print in relatively to the height at which it’s placed, and often time signage facing the opposite direction to a driver on the approach the ParkingEye signs (among all the Hospital Outpatient/Inpatient and multiple ward and treatment centre signs and directions within the site) are impossible to read whilst driving or on exit of the vehicle without a magnifying glass.

As there is both signage from the operator and the NHS, it cannot be assumed who the contract is formed with therefore the most favourable terms must apply.

Accordingly I put ParkingEye to strict proof that their placement of this ANPR ‘entry’ camera above the only mildly legible terms sign has not disadvantaged the driver from attempting to read, review and decide on the terms.


2. No indication where the photos were taken - at the entrance or within the site - ParkingEye have several cameras here in different places.

As noted above the site is huge with camera dotted everywhere given how busy the hospital is, it is not unreasonable to assume the driver entered one location then another and another in search of a space to park as well as offering the required terms to park. No evidence has been shown to prove where the photos were taken, nor even that the 'in' and 'out' images are from corresponding cameras. This is not speculation; this exact kind of misleading evidence was submitted by ParkingEye to a court last month regarding a Hospital site with multiple cameras, car parks and routes:

07/03/2016 Case B7FC00H1 – Parking Eye v Mrs B, before District Judge McKinnell at St Albans
URL HERE

ParkingEye's own evidence in that similar case was essentially worthless. Their pictures showed the vehicle entering the same site’s Patient & Visitor Car Park but leaving a completely different car park.

I submit this may be the case here, as the burden of proof remains with the Operator, I put ParkingEye to strict proof of which camera the 'in' and 'out' photos were taken from, including map evidence showing the markings on the road and/or visible barriers or buildings in the photographs, to prove their assertion. So that POPLA and myself can accurately determine whether the driver was able to see or read the signage present

Equally[ I require their complete listing of every time the vehicle was captured that day, since it’s entirely conscionable that the vehicle was driving in and around the site to read the signage - that includes if the vehicle circled round and revisited and re-read the entrance signs to locate a suitable area to park.

ParkingEye needs to prove this was the case or their PCN is not properly given.

If these photographs were taken at the main entrance to an area which contains 'permit/authorised vehicles', 'pay and display, and free 20 minutes parking in a drop off bay, then it is unclear as to which contravention is alleged. On the Notice To Keeper it only states that the car was in the grounds for 16 minutes and the two photos do not show where the timings were captured.

It is evident, that when entering the site in question, there are multiple routes for a vehicle to take. As the operator is issuing a parking charge on the basis that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle did not comply with the terms and conditions of a particular car park (one of several on site) the burden of proof rests with the operator in showing that a contravention of the terms and conditions in a particular car park took place (i.e. that the car actually parked there in a place where permits or P&D was a requirement).

The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website: URL LINK HERE

The BPA's view is:

'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use...Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'


3. No contractual offer made

Assuming the site in question is the zone by the A&E ward doors, the signage holds forbidding language stating: “No Parking At Any Time”. It is clear that the requirements for forming a contract/ parking licence is offered at all to any motorists i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith. As such ParkingEye have no case to pursue a driver for breach of contract, as there is no contract on offer.

Operators can't ban parking on the one hand, then allow it on the other, at a price. It's either contractual (an offer/consideration must flow between the parties) or it's trespass - only the landowner can sue over trespass.


6. Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012

The registered keeper is submitting this appeal and ParkingEye do not have the identity of the driver.

ParkingEye have failed to correctly and unambiguously notify the registered keeper why the parking charge is due, as is required by the Act. The Act states that the reason for the charge must be included in a Notice. Contrary to this ParkingEye’s generic template PCN indicates that the vehicle supposedly was not authorised at all.



ParkingEye have reported the contravention and the applicable signage wrongly and ambiguously to the appellant because the original PCN claims the signage in the car park used states: “permit only / authorised parking only car park” that the driver apparently “did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation to park”.

Equally no contravention could have occurred even if the driver had parked in the location noted “A&E Drop off Zone” by ParkingEye. The location name itself can reasonably imply this is a drop off zone for A&E patients as such the terms for other “Drop off Zones” within the site which offer 20 minute free parking period should be applied.

It is made all the more confusing for a keeper appellant such as myself, because the original PCN claims the signage in the car park states that it is for 'permit only /authorised parking' and “the charge stands if the motorist fails to obtain a valid permit/authorisation”. the driver apparently 'did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation to park'. That is incorrect. There are multiple car parks - lots of differing signs and different restrictions for each area - certainly not all requiring any permit or payment and the driver did not park in one of those areas.

ParkingEye has failed to comply with the following requirements of the Act and consequently cannot rely on its provisions for keeper liability:

''9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

… (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.''

As ParkingEye has failed to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act cited above, the registered keeper cannot be liable for the charge. The parking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver and there is no lawful way I can be held liable as registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

I am glad you have this bit and the case cited by the parking Prankster:

2. No indication where the photos were taken - at the entrance or within the site - ParkingEye have several cameras here in different places.

ANPR photos only show an isolated car on unremarkable tarmac, could be anywhere.

samee15

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am glad you have this bit and the case cited by the parking Prankster:

ANPR photos only show an isolated car on unremarkable tarmac, could be anywhere.

Thank you!
I will be honest in my it's not the strongest point as entry photo clips the 'entry' road marking (something only at the A&E bay) and the exit photo shows the corner of an ambulance van. But I'm hoping PE won't go into such detail

Coupon-mad

And the Judge will not know.