We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
The Forum is currently experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA Appeal - COMMENTS PLEASE
gjam732
Posts: 13 Forumite
I hope I am doing the right thing posting this here as a new thread.
I have drafted a POPLA appeal based on MikeHammer's draft (thank you) linked from #3 of the Newbie Thread..
Its VERY LONG.....
POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxxxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xxxxxxxx and rejected via a letter dated xxxxxx. 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. 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 (13.4) 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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that: “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the 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.”
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
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.”
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”,
Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of only eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions.
It is therefore argued that the duration of the alleged overstay in question (which ParkingEye claim was 11 minutes ) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
a) The ANPR records the “arrival time” at the point when the vehicle is alleged to be entering the car park and does not show if the car park is busy. While waiting for others to park this would reasonably cause the driver to spend several minutes finding a suitable parking space before parking the car, locating the signs, reading and attempting to understand them, checking the payment methods that can be used, ensuring correct coins and obtaining a ticket – hence the need for a reasonable grace period to be also applied at the START of parking.
b) The time record created by the ANPR at the “departure time” is allegedly at the exit. It does not therefore give any reasonable allowance for time taken to exit the parking space and reach the exit. This is clearly a variable that depends on other activity within the car park (people parking or queueing at the exit). Nor does it clearly show nor make allowance for how long it takes to exit onto the road should there be cars and pedestrians passing the exit. The system clearly makes no reasonable allowance for this and therefore no grace period has been allowed.
d) There is no clearly visible sign at the entrance to the car park advising drivers that ANPR is in operation
e) The lengthiness of ParkingEye’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in a “conditions” section in tiny text at the bottom of the sign would in itself take many minutes to decipher given the height at which they are placed and the miniture size of a significant proportion of the text.
All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to: • Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions. • Read the full terms and conditions. • Decipher the confusing information being presented • Decide whether to park or not• Return to car to obtain correct coinage and return to obtain ticket and later to safely leave the car park.
Even with no mitigating circumstances the alleged overstay is within the revised grace period agreed by the BPA to be allowed at the END of parking and does not allow for ANY grace period at the START as the time is recorded while still driving the vehicle into the car park (ie it is not yet parked or reached a point where it could be deemed reasonable that the driver could be expected to agree to any terms or conditions in the car park).
2 The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
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 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 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).
Paragraph 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.
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.
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;”
ParkingEyes’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle entered the car park at Pleasureland, Morecambe Car Park.” The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered Pleasureland Car Park at TIME pm and departed at TIME”. The NtK states the “Time in Car Park but at no stage do ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.
ParkingEye’s NtK states “are clearly using ANPR images to calculate the length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Parking Eye to substitute “arrival and departure” or “time in car park” 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, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require ParkingEye 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. 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 unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. 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 PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” nor do the photos clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate.
I require ParkingEye Limited to produce evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.
7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
The ParkingEye 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 DATE 2019 the vehicle NNN entered Pleasureland Morecambe Car Park at TIME and departed at TIME on DATE 2019” These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking.
By ParkingEye’s own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the arrival and departure 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.
I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (11 minutes and 39 seconds apart), it is vital that ECP produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.
8. 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 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.
ParkingEye’s signs do not comply with these requirements because the car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
ParkingEyes’ main sign in the Pleasureland Morecambe car park states:
“When you use this car park, ParkingEye Ltd collects and processes certain data in order to ensure that you are complying with the terms and conditions and to undergo checks where necessary. We also use the data for car park management. This will include for example reporting on vehicle turnover and repeat visits in order to improve the customer experience
Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.
There is no reference whatsoever to Parking Charge Notices on ParkingEye’s sign the only IMPLIED reference (to Parking Charges) makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras.
Additionally the sign states
“Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100.” and “If a parking charge becomes due, a reduced payment option will be available for a specified period from issue”
In circumstances where the terms of a 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.
This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: 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.
and Paragraph 69:
Contract terms that may have different meanings:
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':
LINK REMOVED AS NOT ABLE TO POST WITH LINKS
Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2) -
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.
I have drafted a POPLA appeal based on MikeHammer's draft (thank you) linked from #3 of the Newbie Thread..
Its VERY LONG.....
POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxxxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xxxxxxxx and rejected via a letter dated xxxxxx. 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. 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 (13.4) 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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that: “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the 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.”
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
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.”
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”,
Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of only eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions.
It is therefore argued that the duration of the alleged overstay in question (which ParkingEye claim was 11 minutes ) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
a) The ANPR records the “arrival time” at the point when the vehicle is alleged to be entering the car park and does not show if the car park is busy. While waiting for others to park this would reasonably cause the driver to spend several minutes finding a suitable parking space before parking the car, locating the signs, reading and attempting to understand them, checking the payment methods that can be used, ensuring correct coins and obtaining a ticket – hence the need for a reasonable grace period to be also applied at the START of parking.
b) The time record created by the ANPR at the “departure time” is allegedly at the exit. It does not therefore give any reasonable allowance for time taken to exit the parking space and reach the exit. This is clearly a variable that depends on other activity within the car park (people parking or queueing at the exit). Nor does it clearly show nor make allowance for how long it takes to exit onto the road should there be cars and pedestrians passing the exit. The system clearly makes no reasonable allowance for this and therefore no grace period has been allowed.
d) There is no clearly visible sign at the entrance to the car park advising drivers that ANPR is in operation
e) The lengthiness of ParkingEye’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in a “conditions” section in tiny text at the bottom of the sign would in itself take many minutes to decipher given the height at which they are placed and the miniture size of a significant proportion of the text.
All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to: • Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions. • Read the full terms and conditions. • Decipher the confusing information being presented • Decide whether to park or not• Return to car to obtain correct coinage and return to obtain ticket and later to safely leave the car park.
Even with no mitigating circumstances the alleged overstay is within the revised grace period agreed by the BPA to be allowed at the END of parking and does not allow for ANY grace period at the START as the time is recorded while still driving the vehicle into the car park (ie it is not yet parked or reached a point where it could be deemed reasonable that the driver could be expected to agree to any terms or conditions in the car park).
2 The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
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 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 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).
Paragraph 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.
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.
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;”
ParkingEyes’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle entered the car park at Pleasureland, Morecambe Car Park.” The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered Pleasureland Car Park at TIME pm and departed at TIME”. The NtK states the “Time in Car Park but at no stage do ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.
ParkingEye’s NtK states “are clearly using ANPR images to calculate the length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Parking Eye to substitute “arrival and departure” or “time in car park” 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, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require ParkingEye 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. 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 unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. 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 PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” nor do the photos clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate.
I require ParkingEye Limited to produce evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.
7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
The ParkingEye 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 DATE 2019 the vehicle NNN entered Pleasureland Morecambe Car Park at TIME and departed at TIME on DATE 2019” These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking.
By ParkingEye’s own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the arrival and departure 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.
I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (11 minutes and 39 seconds apart), it is vital that ECP produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.
8. 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 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.
ParkingEye’s signs do not comply with these requirements because the car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
ParkingEyes’ main sign in the Pleasureland Morecambe car park states:
“When you use this car park, ParkingEye Ltd collects and processes certain data in order to ensure that you are complying with the terms and conditions and to undergo checks where necessary. We also use the data for car park management. This will include for example reporting on vehicle turnover and repeat visits in order to improve the customer experience
Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.
There is no reference whatsoever to Parking Charge Notices on ParkingEye’s sign the only IMPLIED reference (to Parking Charges) makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras.
Additionally the sign states
“Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100.” and “If a parking charge becomes due, a reduced payment option will be available for a specified period from issue”
In circumstances where the terms of a 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.
This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: 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.
and Paragraph 69:
Contract terms that may have different meanings:
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':
LINK REMOVED AS NOT ABLE TO POST WITH LINKS
Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2) -
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.
0
Comments
-
Really? 30th July 2015 is 'some 3 years ago' from 1st August 2019?Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015
If you can't proof read your 'copy and dump' to eliminate such patent inaccuracy, I doubt anyone is going to plough through the remaining verbiage.
Sorry.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
You need a list of headings.
Point 3 is missing.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Umkomaas, the OP doesn't appear to have another thread about this incident.
gjam732, when was the parking incident?0 -
Also ECP mentioned in para 70
-
To comment more info regarding the parking incident is needed.
Why do you think they have failed with POFA ?0 -
Umkomaas, the OP doesn't appear to have another thread about this incident.
Thanks Keith, now amended.
Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Having found the raw material, you now need to knock it into shape.
If you tell us date of parking event, date PCN received, whether it was from Parking Eye, what the alleged infringement was etc. etc. then we can all gauge how relevant this appeal is.
Looks like the so-called reason for the PCN was an overstay, is that correct? I don't see a problem with including the actual times alleged by the PPC on here. Without knowing those times nobody can tell whether you're right to lead with the Grace Periods section.0 -
When you are quite unfamiliar with this process and particularly when trying to fit someone else's draft to your particular circumstances and you're having to rethink every abbreviation and to understand the technical aspects it makes it very difficult to proof read and clearly doing this late at night has left a few mistakes. Ive attempted to follow the forum advice and find a similar appeal and amend that to fit
Sorry umkomaas I missed amending the number 3 to a 4 (years ago).
Thanks fruitcake for pointing out the reumbering of the paragraphs having removed one from the original that wasn't relevant I've also missed that and thanks 1505grandad - I'd searched "Euro" to fund all references to change to ParkingEye obviously it didn't find the abbreviated one..
MistyZ thanks for the comments. Having read numerous other threads it seemed clear to me that you mustn't identify who you are on these threads (as car park operators can read them) which is why, having mentioned the car park surely if I include times and dates then this becomes identifiable. The issue was an overstay of 11 mins on a 3hr paid ticket. Parking Eye show the time stamp on the alleged entry photo and calculate time in car park by comparing that to photo at alleged exit point. Car park date 16 June Pcn date 25June. Appeal to ParkingEye rejected dated 18 July.
Am I in the right track with the appeal generally or am I miles away..?0 -
if the alleged overstay was 11 minutes , clause #13 of the BPA CoP applies which is 2 grace periods , one before of up to 10 minutes and one of 10 or more minutes to leave after the parking period ended
grace periods for a total of 11 minutes is the greatest ally for your appeal, but break id into two and say so, say why its a failure by PE of the BPA CoP, that its two reasonable grace periods on a site with a paid for ticket
redraft with all the amendments and repost below0 -
Re. splitting the grace periods into two parts, check out post 31 on this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6007539/blue-badge-grace-periods&highlight=grace+periods+two+parts&page=2#topofpage
There's a link to an example of how to do it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.7K Life & Family
- 256.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards