PCN issued for ANPR Poole Quayside when ticket was bought

ppp384

FWIW when this is over without having to pay I'll donate the charge amount to charity as a thank you for all your help.

Umkomaas

As I already appealed but don't believe the information they have provided, is it worth/does it do any harm to reply to the appeal? I drafted the text below. What do you think? (Unfortunately I never kept the text that I originally sent).

You've made your appeal, it was never going to be upheld, you've got your POPLA code, so use that, but not with that posted in #20. There is nowhere further to go with Britannia.

Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 which talks you through how to develop a winning POPLA appeal. Let us see your draft for critique before submitting. Don't miss your POPLA deadline.

Redx

ppp384 wrote: »

As I already appealed but don't believe the information they have provided, is it worth/does it do any harm to reply to the appeal? I drafted the text below. What do you think? (Unfortunately I never kept the text that I originally sent).

Once I can track down the right email address I'll also send an SAR.

their email address is on their privacy page , email a SAR to their DPO


then draft your popla appeal and use your popla code


no point in arguing with them , they wont be interested in anything apart from a cheque

ppp384

Umkomaas wrote: »

You've made your appeal, it was never going to be upheld, you've got your POPLA code, so use that, but not with that posted in #20. There is nowhere further to go with Britannia.

Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 which talks you through how to develop a winning POPLA appeal. Let us see your draft for critique before submitting. Don't miss your POPLA deadline.

I’ve taken an example from the Newbie thread and produced dropbox.com/s/jdb6m7yqjn77to8/POPLA%20appeal%20draft.pdf?dl=0 what do you think?

The main points are:
- inadequate signage
- ANPR and data issues
- landowner permission

Although in my BP appeal I mentioned I had bought a ticket I did not name the driver. Should I mention that again or call out anything about it?

Should I make an argument for no calibration or checking of the times between the ticket machine and ANPR? Or leave it leaning on the fact they have no evidence the car was actually parked for a period of time? I may have paid for parking but I don’t know that it was required or if the driver needed it, it may have been used for a quick drop off/pickup within allowed time limits. No evidence is provided by BP.

Thanks.

(P.s. sorry for any silly mistakes, I’m doing this on my iPad while in bed with my wife asleep)

Umkomaas

Please just draft your POPLA appeal and post it here (not on Dropbox or any other third party site) where we can read it. Random questions 'will this work' are difficult to give answers to without seeing the full picture.

While your entire story is clear to you, it is not instantly to us. Please remember that we are dealing with hundreds of cases on the forum, so it's impossible to carry all the details of every case in our heads!

ppp384

Part 1:

Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v Britannia Parking Ltd Vehicle Registration: [XXX]
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 Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged on [XXX] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [XXX]. 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:

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
No Planning Permission from BCP Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:

“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix states:

“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”

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

Figure 1 below shows a map of the Quayside.

Figure1: Map of the Quayside




Figure 2 shows the view at the entrance/exit with conditions, similar to those of the case under discussion. It is straightforward to conclude from Figure 2 that there is no clear sign indicating the entrance/exit of the venue with the required, legible information.

All items above indicate the contravention of BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) which states: “you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.” and (18.3): “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Figure 2: entry/exit of the venue



In addition to the lack of adequate entry signs, Britannia Parking Ltd’s main car park signs are inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because none include detailed and legible terms and conditions. It clearly violates BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) and appendix B. From the images taken from the road it is clear that this is the case.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that a lack of signs was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I put Britannia Parking Ltd to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

As further evidence that inadequate notice was provided, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.'' ...and the same chart is reproduced here: https://www.thesignchef.com/sizing_guide.php

'When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located, invisible after dark, and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge when entering or otherwise the car park.

Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Britannia Parking Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods 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 because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

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

BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:

“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

Be registered with the Information Commissioner
keep to the Data Protection Act
follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at: https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:
“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:
• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

“the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”

“Note:
... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”
16

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if Britannia Parking Ltd 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 Ltd must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require Britannia Parking Ltd to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

“5.3 Staying in Control
Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:
• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”
“7.6 Privacy Notices
It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.
One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”

Britannia Parking Ltd has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Britannia Parking Ltd has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

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;”

Britannia Parking Ltd’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. At no stage does Britannia Parking Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012.

Britannia Parking Ltd uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the area to calculate their length of stay.

Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. Britannia Parking Ltd, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Britannia Parking Ltd to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Britannia Parking Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require Britannia Parking Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

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

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The NtK in question contains two close-up license plate images. The time and date stamp and license plate have been inserted into the underneath (but not part of) the images. Given the area where the photograph was taken has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by Britannia Parking Ltd’s APRN. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and Britannia Parking Ltd claim was unauthorized.

I require Britannia Parking Ltd to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than just passing through.

Failing to produce such evidence would indicate the Britannia Parking Ltd has been using APRN to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing through and send NtK with the aim to extract penalty.

Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.

Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require Britannia Parking Ltd to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

Britannia Parking Ltd’s NtK simply claims “that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. Britannia Parking Ltd states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site.

In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, POPLA please take note and bin your usual 'ANPR is generally OK' template because:

The British Parking Association DOES NOT AUDIT the ANPR systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has NO WAY to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate.

Independent research has NOT found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.

As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:

Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says:

"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said:

"In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate"

You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us.

This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.

POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says:

''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.''

Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.''

Secondly, ANPR data processing and/or system failure is well known, and is certainly inappropriate in a mixed retail and residential area, such as the location in question. The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws: http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'' and they specifically mention the flaw of assuming that 'drive in, drive out' events are parking events. They state that: ''Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner''.

Excessive use of ANPR 24/7 when such blanket coverage is overkill in terms of data processing, was also condemned by the BPA and the ICO:
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/excessive-use-of-anpr-cameras-for-enforcement

As POPLA can see from that, excessive use of ANPR is in fact, illegal, and no-one audits it except for the ICO when the public, or groups, make complaints.

Britannia Parking Ltd is put to strict proof that the system has not failed within this site.

POPLA cannot use your usual 'the BPA audits it' erroneous template which needs consigning to the bin.

Please show the above email from Steve Clark, to your Lead Adjudicator.

Kindly stop assuming ANPR systems work, and expecting consumers to prove the impossible about the workings of a system over which they have no control but where independent and publicly available information about its inherent failings is very readily available.

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.
Britannia Parking Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these 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.

There is no information indicates 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.

ppp384

Part 2:

No Planning Permission from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search in BCP counci ‘s planning database does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for the area nor does it show any advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2.

UK government guidance on advertisement requires:
“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under.
It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”

This clearly proves Britannia Parking Ltd is/has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

I request Britannia Parking Ltd provides evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (29 Mar 2018).
END

ppp384

Umkomaas wrote: »

Please just draft your POPLA appeal and post it here (not on Dropbox or any other third party site) where we can read it. Random questions 'will this work' are difficult to give answers to without seeing the full picture.

While your entire story is clear to you, it is not instantly to us. Please remember that we are dealing with hundreds of cases on the forum, so it's impossible to carry all the details of every case in our heads!

Point taken, thank you.

The summary is:

Driver drove into APNR monitored car park. I bought a ticket to cover two hours, this was 100% bought (I’ve said this is my initial appeal). Appeal rejected with some ticket data not including my purchase (based on VPN and time). I, as keeper, received a PCN. I, as keeper don’t know if the car actually left and came back later again, no evidence supplied. Files in the Dropbox folder previously mentioned (sorry, can’t get link at the moment on iPad).

Umkomaas

Please show the above email from Steve Clark, to your Lead Adjudicator.

Do you have it to show?

Why would you want it to be shown to the Lead Adjudicator?

No Planning Permission from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

Complete waste of time. POPLA have never adjudicated on it, it is not their issue to deal with. If you want to argue a case on that, do it with the local council - but you will have to be 'driven' to see any useful outcome. If you're not, let it go!

Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require Britannia Parking Ltd to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

Irrelevant rant. How would you anticipate Britannia being able to comply with your final sentence? Remember, even though you have copied and pasted most of this, these now become your words so please make sure that firstly you understand them and they make sense not only to you, but to the circumstances of your case.

I've skimmed the rest of the appeal, but the formatting is not great and therefore not easy to read. But it does seem to be a copy and paste of generic points and littered with rants that are neither likely to, nor helpful in getting the appeal upheld.

Have you checked whether this car park is covered by byelaws? Lots of harbour-side car parks are. If this one is, it opens a whole new appeal point to be made.

Redx

Do not copy and paste directly from a formatted document such as word

Number the initial menu , then number each section , adding relevant points such as

No landowner authority
Poor and inadequate signage
POFA failures
Keeper not the driver
BPA Cop failures

Pointless talking about the lead adjudicator, or planning permission etc , stick to the main issues and make it easy for us to read and check