Incomplete VRN - POPLA appeal stage

Stellamia

Hello,
This is my first post, I am seeking a review of the attached appeal to POPLA, please

The PCN is from Britannia Parking for failing to input my full VRN on parking at my local station car park. I had no indication at the time that there was any problem and was not aware that the full VRN had not been registered. I paid with a credit card and parked as usual and then the PCN arrived out of the blue a week later. As I was not aware of this site at the time, I naively assumed that by presenting the ticket (as the PCN only said 'failure to make a valid payment) and a redacted copy of my credit card statement, their internal appeal process would clear the whole thing up.

Their rejection of the internal appeal was dated 3 June so I have calculated that I have until 1 July to submit my POPLA appeal. I have done a lot of reading on this site and hopefully the draft below is along the right lines. I have photos of the relevant signage but have not included them here as I have quoted the wording verbatim - I will send them to POPLA, obviously. Please let me know if I need to include them on here.

Any advice on the draft would be very gratefully received. Thanks in advance. Apologies for the spacing and formatting, once it's copied in here I don't seem to be able to edit it.


Appeal re POPLA Code [XXXX] v Britannia Parking

Vehicle Registration: [XXXX]
POPLA ref: [XXX]


I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated [XXX] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator - Britannia Parking - was submitted and acknowledged on [DATE] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [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) Unclear signage, Terms and Conditions unclear: failure to specify what constitutes a 'valid
ticket' for parking

2) The use of Pay and Display Terminals (PDT)s which take payment for what Britannia
claim are not valid tickets, thus allowing and profiting from consumer error, unfair under
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CPUTRS 2008

3) Breaches of BPA Code of Practice in relation to proportionality of charge and ANPR
checks

4) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance
with the BPA Code of Practice

5) 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).

6) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for



1) Unclear signage, Terms and Conditions unclear; failure to specify what constitutes a 'valid
ticket' for parking

I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. Britannia Parking issued
a Parking Charge on [DATE], claiming that I had 'failed to make a valid payment' when
visiting a car park managed by them at [NAME] on [DATE]. I had made the relevant
payment at the PDT on entry and displayed the ticket issued by the PDT prominently on
my dashboard, as directed. The PCN attached ANPR images of my vehicle entering the
car park at [TIME] and leaving at [TIME]. It also stated that

"The signage displayed at the entrance of the car park and throughout states that the site
is private land operated by Britannia Parking (the creditor). The conditions detailed on
the signage must be complied to (sic) or a Parking Charge Notice will be incurred.
Motorists who choose to park their vehicle in the car park are thereby agreeing to be
bound by these terms.
As the motorist has contravened the terms and conditions detailed on the signage, a
parking charge notice has been issued and is now payable to Britannia Parking."

As a payment in full had been made on the day, I used the internal appeal process for
Britannia Parking on 20 May 2019 to send a copy of the ticket issued by the PDT and
also a redacted copy of the relevant credit card bill, showing the relevant payment
made.

On 3 June 2019 Britannia Parking replied, refusing the appeal, stating:
"Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in
breach of the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park.
The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the vehicle because a valid ticket was not
purchased. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they have read and understood
the terms and conditions for using the car park.
We have reviewed the transaction data for the date of your visit and we have been
unable to find a ticket purchased, which corresponds to your vehicle registration number.
Britannia Parking is an active member of the BPA and we follow their AOS Code of
Practice at all times. We meet all the requirements for our signage as advised under
section 18 and 19 for England and Wales or Section 28 for Scotland, of the BPA's Code
of Practice regarding signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions.
The signage in the car park states that you must "Enter the FULL and correct vehicle
registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff"
Taking into consideration that the full and correct registration number has not been
entered, we consider this Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued. By
leaving your vehicle in the car park without a valid ticket you have broken the Terms and
Conditions of the Car Park."


This is incorrect. As seen on the attached photograph of the sign near the entrance to the
Car Park, the signage gives a table of the relevant charges, then underneath states, in
smaller font:
"Please enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when
paying the tariff"
Underneath, in a separate section, in large font "£100 Parking Charge notice may be
issued to all vehicles which:
Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit
Are parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge
Are not parked entirely within a marked bay
Fail to have a valid mobile payment session
Are parked on yellow lines or on hatched areas
Are parked in a restricted area or obstruct access ways"

On the PDT itself, the sign reads:
"Conditions of use
• Tickets must be clearly displayed in the windscreen of vehicle
• Failure to display a valid ticket may result in a Parking Charge Notice
• Tickets are NOT Transferable"

Elsewhere, in what appears to be guidance on how to use the machine and pay, wording
states
"Enter your full number plate"

On neither sign is the wording that motorists 'must enter the FULL and correct vehicle
registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff', as stated in Britannia's
rejection of my appeal. On the contrary, the wording 'Please enter the full and
correct vehicle registration ...' (my bold) implies that the input of the full VRN is a 'nice to
have' administrative matter rather than a strict condition.

Britannia are claiming that the lack of a full VRN means that the car was parked without
a valid ticket, but the signage fails to identify any circumstances which would invalidate a
ticket.

The ticket I was issued with does not show the full VRN of my vehicle, it includes only
the first two letters. I have no indication whether this was a simple keying error on my
part or an error on the part of the PDT which only recognised part of the details input. I
have used the car park on many previous occasions with no issues so had no reason to
doubt that in this instance I had a valid ticket.

I contend that Britannia have not clearly stated that a ticket, paid for in full, which does
not include a full VRN, (which could be as a result of a faulty PDT), will be considered
invalid and thereby incur a Parking Charge of £100. It cannot be considered an equal
offence to failing to purchase a ticket, which would clearly be a breach of the terms and
conditions, or parking on yellow lines, not in a marked bay, or parked in a restricted area
or obstructing access ways, which would clearly have the potential to inconvenience
other drivers.

On the contrary, I have bought and paid for the parking in full, so there has been no loss
to Britannia Parking.


2) The use of Pay and Display Terminals (PDT)s which issue and take payment for what
Britannia claim are not valid tickets, thus allowing and profiting from consumer error,
unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CPUTRS 2008


The ticket I was issued by the PDT has only the first two letters of my VRN. I do not know
whether this was caused by a simple keying error or a machine malfunction. The PDT
accepted that the two letters input were sufficient to take payment and issue a ticket. I
believe that there are no instances where two letters alone can be a valid VRN, but there
was no warning from the PDT that this would invalidate the ticket, e.g. a reminder 'are
you sure? We need you to enter the whole VRN to validate your ticket, press Y or N or
'clear' to start again and enter the full VRN to avoid a parking charge of £100.' If failure to
ensure a full VRN is entered, it is well within Britannia Parking's capability to introduce
such checks on their machines.

It could also be argued that, contrary to my having breached the terms and conditions of
the car park, as Britannia claim, the fact that their machines are set to accept a
2-character VRN which was not in the car park, this forms an 'alternative contract' which
has been offered and accepted by their machine taking my payment.

The CDT machines are therefore set to allow and profit from consumer error, which would
be easily avoidable by better data handling processes and checks in the system, for
which Britannia are responsible.


3) Breaches of BPA Code of Practice in relation to proportionality of charge and ANPR
checks

The BPA Code of Practice 19.5 states that:

"If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act
of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not
expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must
be able to justify the amount in advance"

The 'breach of contract' being alleged in this case is for either a machine malfunction or a
simple human error, in circumstances where Britannia Parking have accepted my
payment in full. They have therefore not incurred any loss, but have chosen to try and
charge the absolute maximum amount recommended by the BPA for the most serious
breach of contract, such as failure to make any attempt to pay. This cannot be deemed to
be 'proportionate and commercially justifiable'.

The BPA Code of Practice 21.2 states that:

"Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual
quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate
to take action."

On discovering that there was no corresponding payment with the full VRN of my car, it
would have been a simple matter for Britannia to carry out the manual check required,
to examine payments made around the time my vehicle entered the car park. Such a
check was clearly not carried out: this would have shown that a payment including the
first two characters of my VRN was made at exactly the same time as the vehicle
entered the car park, and would have demonstrated that it was clearly not appropriate
to issue a parking charge notice for the absolute maximum amount allowed under the
BPA CoP.


4) 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
a full copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or
'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as 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 in fact has the right to
cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to
merely put up some signs 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
statements 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 and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where
enforcement does/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions
which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge (which cannot be assumed
to be the sum 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
Britannia Parking 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


5 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)

The 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, which 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 organisation 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 to 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 minimise 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 are taken directly from the ICO's CCTV Code of Practice and state
that if Britannia 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 Britannia Parking must regularly evaluate whether it is
necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

I therefore require Britannia Parking to provide proof of regular privacy impact
assessment in order to comply with the ICO's CCTV Code of Practice and BPA's Code of
Practice. It 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 made 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 prevent 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
than it may first appear.

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual's right of
subject access."

Britannia parking has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the driver or
keeper's right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Britannia Parking has not
stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the driver's or keeper's right to a
SAR on any paperwork, Notice to Keeper, reminder letter or rejection letter, despite their
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 issued.


6) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which
breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the
cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR
camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP 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.

Britannia Parking's signs do not comply with these requirements because this car park
signage fails to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a
'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

There is no information which indicates that these camera images would be used in order
to issue Parking Charge Notices.

Coupon-mad

I'll read it when I come out from behind the sofa, once you remove this:

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Britannia Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xxxx and rejected via a letter dated xxxxx. 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:

...and this is why:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75888733#Comment_75888733

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75682051#Comment_75682051

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75473592#Comment_75473592

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75343059#Comment_75343059

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75020783#Comment_75020783

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

Stellamia

So sorry, I should have said in the first post, as I wasn't aware of this site when I submitted the internal appeal to Britannia, I did confirm that I was the driver. Having done that, I thought I had lost any advantage in keeping to the non-commital wording of keeper/driver? If that's not the case, I will of course go back and amend it.

Thanks.

Stellamia

OK, got it, first sentence now changed, thanks.

Coupon-mad

Please entirely remove the unnecessary introduction paragraph from the post above, to stop other people copying the awful split infinitive that's been doing the rounds for far too long.

No-one needs to write the story of when they got the PCN and when they appealed, and the date of the daft rejection letter - it's not needed and that version really grates, as the grammar is so awful (I know it's not yours!).

The ticket I was issued by the PDT has only the first two letters of my VRN. I do not know whether this was caused by a simple keying error or a machine malfunction. The PDT accepted that the two letters input were sufficient to take payment and issue a ticket.

Due to the facts above you'll probably lose this one at POPLA (who are useless about common sense & the test of fairness and the fact it's probably the fault of the old Parkeon machines or whatever the PPC used) but it's very winnable in a court case.

Stellamia

Many thanks Coupon-Mad, will do. I won't hold my breath about the outcome of the POPLA appeal; having read around this site, it's clear that fairness and common sense aren't the overriding themes in the appeal process.

The_Deep

Should this get to court, many judges regard wrong VRNs as a trifling matter and a waste of the court's time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

Is this an old Parkeon PDT machine? I'd get some photos now for the POPLA appeal (embed your photos into the body of the appeal document PDF) and ready for court.

These PDT machines are known to fail re the VRN input, and proving that the full terms/parking charge is not in the same large font as the tariff list will be important in court, and can also win at POPLA.

So get some photos with a ruler held up against the tariff font size, compared with the 'parking charge' on the nearest sign to the PDT machine as well as pics of the machine and how cluttered the keyboard is, and not user-friendly.

Use this as well for POPLA and later in court, if needed:

https://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/car-park-payment-machines.html

''Car park payment machines teach us that less important tasks should not dominate the user interface
This second example comes from a car park payment machine in Buxton in Derbyshire. It’s the kind of machine where you have to enter you car’s license plate when you buy your ticket, so you can’t pass your ticket to someone else if you leave the car park early.

Buxton has an elderly population and when I first saw this machine there was a gaggle of pensioners (if “gaggle” is the correct collective noun for pensioners) trying to work out how to use it.

Anyone who has got this far will have enough design sense to spot a number of issues with this design. The first problem is the vertical keyboard — perhaps another example of a technology constraint. (Less charitably, maybe the designers wanted to maximise the space on the machine for instructions as they knew it would be so hard to use.)

The second problem is that it’s a non-QWERTY keyboard, arranged in 4 columns. To give you some idea why this is a problem, stop for a second and try using the keypad to enter your license plate or (if you don’t have a car) your initials and year of birth. This is a problem because people in Buxton (as in the rest of Britain) tend to read left to right. With this design, you first read a digit and then three letters (“1-A-J-S, 2-B-K-T'”) which makes it difficult to find the key you are after. The third problem is that the labels on the keys are closer to the button above the label rather than the button they apply to, so it’s easy to miskey your registration number.

But I think the main problem with this design is that the user interface is designed around the secondary task of entering your license plate. The key task is to pay for car parking. The secondary task is to enter your registration number. But it’s the secondary task that dominates this design.

It’s no wonder that pensioners struggle.''

Article by Dr. David Travis (@userfocus) who has been carrying out ethnographic field research and running product usability tests since 1989. He has published three books on user experience including Think Like a UX Researcher.

Stellamia

Hi,
Great news, following my appeal to POPLA, within a working day Britannia Parking decided not to contest it!

Very many thanks to all who work so hard to maintain this wonderful source of information and advice. I will add the text of my appeal for anyone who may be able to make use of some or all of it. To echo the advice from others, it is worth investing a bit of time and energy to research this site and fight these wholly unfair charges.

Kind regards all, and good luck.

My appeal to POPLA:

Appeal re POPLA Code [code] v Britannia Parking

Vehicle Registration: [xxxx[
POPLA ref: [xxxx]

I am the registered keeper of this vehicle. I contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) Unclear signage, Terms and Conditions unclear: failure to specify what constitutes a 'valid ticket' for parking
2) The use of Pay and Display Terminals (PDT)s which take payment for what Britannia claim are not valid tickets, thus allowing and profiting from consumer error, unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CPUTRS 2008
3) Breaches of BPA Code of Practice in relation to proportionality of charge and ANPR checks
4) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5) 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).
6) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
7) Case is dissimilar to "Parking Eye vs Beavis"
8) Inconsistent description of alleged contravention

It should be noted that if the operator remains silent on any appeal point then it is accepted.

1) Unclear signage, Terms and Conditions unclear; failure to specify what constitutes a 'valid ticket' for parking
I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. Britannia Parking issued a Parking Charge on 17 May 2019, claiming that I had 'failed to make a valid payment' when visiting a car park managed by them at Arlesey and Henlow Station Car Park on 10 May 2019. I had made the relevant payment at the PDT on entry and displayed the ticket issued by the PDT prominently on my dashboard, as directed. The PCN attached ANPR images of my vehicle entering the car park at 09.48 and leaving at 16.59. It also stated that
"The signage displayed at the entrance of the car park and throughout states that the site is private land operated by Britannia Parking (the creditor). The conditions detailed on the signage must be complied to (sic) or a Parking Charge Notice will be incurred. Motorists who choose to park their vehicle in the car park are thereby agreeing to be bound by these terms.
As the motorist has contravened the terms and conditions detailed on the signage, a parking charge notice has been issued and is now payable to Britannia Parking."
As a payment in full had been made on the day, I used the internal appeal process for Britannia Parking on 20 May 2019 to send a copy of the ticket issued by the PDT and also a redacted copy of the relevant credit card bill, showing the relevant payment made.
On 3 June 2019 Britannia Parking replied, refusing the appeal, stating:
"Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park.
The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the vehicle because a valid ticket was not purchased. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they have read and understood the terms and conditions for using the car park.
We have reviewed the transaction data for the date of your visit and we have been unable to find a ticket purchases, which corresponds to your vehicle registration number.
Britannia Parking is an active member of the BPA and we follow their AOS Code of Practice at all times. We meet all the requirements for our signage as advised under section 18 and 19 for England and Wales or Section 28 for Scotland, of the BPA's Code of Practice regarding signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions.
The signage in the car park states that you must "Enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff"
Taking into consideration that the full and correct registration number has not been entered, we consider this Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued. By leaving your vehicle in the car park without a valid ticket you have broken the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park."
This is incorrect. As seen on the attached photograph of the sign near the entrance to the Car Park, the signage gives a table of the relevant charges, then underneath states, in smaller font:
"Please enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff"
Underneath, in a separate section, in large font "£100 Parking Charge notice may be issued to all vehicles which:
Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit
Are parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge
Are not parked entirely within a marked bay
Fail to have a valid mobile payment session
Are parked on yellow lines or on hatched areas
Are parked in a restricted area or obstruct access ways"

On the PDT itself, the sign reads:
"Conditions of use
• Tickets must be clearly displayed in the windscreen of vehicle
• Failure to display a valid ticket may result in a Parking Charge Notice
• Tickets are NOT Transferable"
Elsewhere, in what appears to be guidance on how to use the machine, wording states "Enter your full number plate"

On neither sign is the wording that motorists 'must enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff', as stated in Britannia's rejection of my appeal. On the contrary, the wording 'Please enter the full and correct vehicle registration ...' (my bold) implies that the input of the full VRN is a 'nice to have' administrative matter rather than a strict condition.
Britannia are claiming that the lack of a full VRN means that the car was parked without a valid ticket, but the signage fails to identify any circumstances which would invalidate a ticket.

The ticket I was issued with does not show the full VRN of my vehicle, it includes only the first two letters. I have no indication whether this was a simple keying error on my part or an error on the part of the PDT which only recognised part of the details input. I have used the car park on many previous occasions with no issues so had no reason to doubt that my full and correct VRN had been input, nor that in this instance I had a valid ticket.
I contend that Britannia have not clearly stated that a ticket, paid for in full, which does not include a full VRN, (which could be as a result of a faulty PDT), will be considered invalid and thereby incur a Parking Charge of £100. It cannot be considered an equal offence to failing to purchase a ticket, which would clearly be a breach of the terms and conditions, or parking on yellow lines, not in a marked bay, or parked in a restricted area or obstructing access ways, which would clearly have the potential to inconvenience other drivers. The signage does not state that simply failing to correctly input a VRN will result in a fine.
In fact, simply stating that a £100 penalty will be incurred for not displaying a valid ticket is deliberately misleading to the motorist, given that a definition of what is a 'valid ticket' is not present. Without such a definition, the motorist is simply unable to determine whether they have in fact purchased a valid ticket which will be to the satisfaction of the operator.
On the contrary, I have bought and paid for the parking in full, so there has been no loss to Britannia Parking.

2) The use of Pay and Display Terminals (PDT)s which issue and take payment for what Britannia claim are not valid tickets, thus allowing and profiting from consumer error, unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CPUTRS 2008
The ticket I was issued by the PDT has only the first two letters of my VRN. I do not know whether this was caused by a simple keying error or a machine malfunction. The PDT accepted that two letters were sufficient to take payment and issue a ticket. I believe that there are no instances where two letters alone can be a valid VRN, but there was no warning from the PDT that this would invalidate the ticket, e.g. a reminder 'are you sure? We need you to enter the whole VRN to validate your ticket, press Y or N or 'clear' to start again and enter the full VRN to avoid a parking charge of £100.' If failure to input a full VRN is deemed to be such an important point as to breach the terms and conditions of the car park, it is well within Britannia Parking's capability to introduce such checks on their machines so as not to unfairly disadvantage the motorist.
According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 any goods purchased should be 'Fit for 'Purpose'. In selling me a ticket, which was bought and paid for in good faith, which Britannia now claim is 'invalid', it cannot be said to be 'fit for purpose'. It cannot be fair that Britannia have sold me what they now claim is an 'invalid' ticket, but then seek to charge me a penalty for not having a valid ticket.
It could also be argued that, contrary to my having breached the terms and conditions of the car park, as Britannia claim, the fact that their machines are set to accept a 2-character VRN which was not in the car park, this forms an 'alternative contract' which has been offered and accepted by their taking and retaining my payment.
The CDT machines are therefore set to allow and profit from consumer error, which would be easily avoidable by better data handling processes and checks in the system, for which Britannia are responsible. Indeed, other operators have payment machines which, when the first few characters of the VRN are input, bring up a photograph of any vehicle in the car park which matches those characters and the motorist has to simply choose which is their vehicle, thereby removing the capacity for error, though of course also removing the opportunity for the operator to issue potentially lucrative PCNs for such errors.
A concealed 'term' which results in a several thousand percent increase to the original payable fee can be deemed disadvantageous to the customer. By not explaining how this term is triggered, the operator is taking advantage of the customer's circumstances.

3) Breaches of BPA Code of Practice in relation to proportionality of charge and ANPR checks
The BPA Code of Practice 19.5 states that:
"If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"
The 'breach of contract' being alleged in this case is for either a machine malfunction or a simple human error, in circumstances where Britannia Parking have accepted my payment in full. They have therefore not incurred any loss, but have chosen to try and charge the absolute maximum amount recommended by the BPA for the most serious breach of contract, such as failure to make any attempt to pay. This cannot be deemed to be 'proportionate and commercially justifiable'.
The BPA Code of Practice 21.2 states that:
"Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action."
On discovering that there was no corresponding payment with the full VRN of my car, it would have been a simple matter for Britannia to carry out the manual check required, to examine payments made around the time my vehicle entered the car park. Such a check was clearly not carried out: this would have shown that a payment including the first two characters of my VRN was made at exactly the same time as the vehicle entered the car park, and would have demonstrated that it was clearly not appropriate to issue a parking charge notice for the absolute maximum amount allowed under the BPA CoP.


4) 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 a full copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as 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 in fact has the right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put up some signs 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 statements 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.

Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put Britannia Parking 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
5 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)


The 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, which 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 organisation 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 to 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 minimise 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 are taken directly from the ICO's CCTV Code of Practice and state that if Britannia 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 Britannia Parking must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.
I therefore require Britannia Parking to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessment in order to comply with the ICO's CCTV Code of Practice and BPA's Code of Practice. It 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 made 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 prevent 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 than it may first appear.
One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual's right of subject access."
Britannia parking has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the driver or keeper's right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Britannia Parking has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the driver's or keeper's right to a SAR on any paperwork, Notice to Keeper, reminder letter or rejection letter, despite their 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 issued.

6) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP 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.
Britannia Parking's signs do not comply with these requirements because this car park signage fails 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 operator's signage at the car park states that the ANPR system is used for the "prevention and/or detection of crime". It does not state anything about cross referencing VRNs to confirm the validity of tickets.
I therefore require Britannia Parking to provide evidence that they have clearly indicated to the motorise that their data captured by ANPR will be used to issue a penalty should their VRN not be recognised by the system.

7) Case is dissimilar to "Parking Eye vs Beavis"
The operator may site the "Parking Eye vs Beavis" case, which operators may seek to employ as a blanket case to justify their actions. It is my understanding that this case is wholly dissimilar to "Parking Eye vs Beavis" in that there is absolutely no loss to Britannia.
In "Beavis", the Court found that whilst the charge of £85 may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, Parking Eye had a legitimate interest in enforcing the fine where motorists overstay, in properly managing the car park and deterring motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for to ensure further income by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause.
Therefore whilst an operator can demonstrate a loss where there is an overstay, in that the space cannot be used by anyone else, there is no loss where registration details have been recorded wrongly but the requisite fee has been paid.
I require that Britannia Parking demonstrate a genuine pre-estimate of their loss and evidence how this is not an unenforceable penalty.
The Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that the judgement in "Beavis" was not a 'silver bullet' which justifies all parking charges. Indeed, cases which are not about a free parking licence but involve a simple financial transaction (e.g. paying a tariff and inputting a VRN) were said at the Court of Appeal state to be likely to fall foul of Lord Dundedin's four tests for an unenforceable penalty.
Britannia cannot argue that a 'legitimate interest' exists to punish customers for having an incorrect or incomplete VRN on a ticket on a single occasion, yet using the car park for exactly the purpose intended and for no more than the paid-for time. "Beavis" is not comparable and does not supersede any consideration of the specific facts in this case. It is likely that the courts would say it is 'unconscionable' to penalise a customer who has proved they paid and displayed, at the same level as, for example, a motorist who parked across two bays and left without paying any tariff.

8) Inconsistent description of contravention

The signage in the car park states that a parking charge would be issued if a customer should 'Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit'. The contravention noted on the parking charge notice reads 'Failed to make a valid payment'. Britannia's appeal rejection letter states that the parking charge was issued because 'a valid ticket was not purchased'
These are entirely different contraventions. I paid in full, the payment was deemed valid by the operator's machine which accepted my payment and issued me with a receipt, including VAT details, time and amount paid.