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).
Popla Appeal for Overstaying in Met Parking
Dkgarg
Posts: 15 Forumite
Hi
I got a pcn for overstaying in car park. It has 5 hours of free parking and driver overstayed by 28 minutes. driver has enough proofs that he is not a trespasser but a genuine customer , who has used the service with in premises like shopping, movie, dinner etc.
I have followed other threads and drafted my appeal based on that but just wondering if it still works after the Parking eye vs Beaves case.
Dear popla
I (keeper) have already provided proofs to MET Parking that the driver was a genuine customer not a trespasser by proving all the receipts after entering into the park. E.g. Below is the breakdown
a. Entered car park at 17:20 and went to B&M store
b. After that Driver went to 150 minute movie. Cineworld movie start 20 minutes after
the given time. So considering going and coming + 20 minutes of advertisements +
150 minute move. So the turnaround time is always 180 minutes.
c. Then driver went to Franky and benny for dinner
d. After that Asda grocery shopping.
e. Applicable and available bank transactions provided as proof.
I would like to appeal to POPLA because I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.
1. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
2. No evidence of landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
3. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy 4. ANPR usage
5. No grace period allowed/applied
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
1. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Met Parking Services must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.
Additionally if a genuine customer like driver in this case comes under such
circumstances where driver has overstayed unintentionally, are there any signs showing how to pay for overstay to save the penalty imposed.
2. No evidence of landowner/Authority to issue PCNs The BPA code of practice contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.
Met Parking Services does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Met Parking Services has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Met Parking Services to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Met Parking Services produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Met Parking Services.
3. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Met Parking Services to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that Met Parking Services produces evidence in response to these points.
In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Met Parking Services to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Met Parking Services to strict proof to the contrary.
4. ANPR usage
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.'
Met Parking Services fails to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Met Parking Services uses inadequate signage on arrival, as described in section 2 above, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system, essentially being a secret high-up spy camera, far from 'transparent', unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.
5. No grace period allowed/applied – BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The charge that was levied is unreasonable for overstaying in the car park. Because of ANPR, It is difficult to note down the exact time when the clock starts ticking and when it is going to alarm the bell of 5 hours free parking.
There was no ticketing system or automatic sign to show the time by which car had to leave the premises. Nor any signs of payment if you overstay in the free car park. Usually in ticketing system, it starts as soon as you buy the ticket but in this case, it should ideally start when I park my car not enter the car park.
British Parking Association code of practice (BPA CoP) states:
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is
13.4 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.
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. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read " observe the signage terms, before paying.
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. 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,” he explains.
“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.”
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.
So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes 'observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.''
“In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.”
Grace periods are not even mentioned on the signs at Car Park and the signs do seem to indicate that the period of parking begins when the vehicle is parked. So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of how long my car was actually parked for, and for them to state their policy on grace periods and how these are communicated.
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper sent by Met Parking Services to myself is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The Operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor, which requires words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... ". The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. Met Parking Services has failed to do this and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.
The Appeal
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:
a) As I have enough proof’s that driver was not a trespasser but a genuine customer. There is no way (described in the premises) how to pay for overstaying. The sum is disproportionate.
b).Met has failed to provide any information on grace periods and has not provided any proof for how long the car was actually parked. They just sent images of entering the exiting the car park. c) There is no evidence that you have any interest in the land.
d) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
e) I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully,
I got a pcn for overstaying in car park. It has 5 hours of free parking and driver overstayed by 28 minutes. driver has enough proofs that he is not a trespasser but a genuine customer , who has used the service with in premises like shopping, movie, dinner etc.
I have followed other threads and drafted my appeal based on that but just wondering if it still works after the Parking eye vs Beaves case.
Dear popla
I (keeper) have already provided proofs to MET Parking that the driver was a genuine customer not a trespasser by proving all the receipts after entering into the park. E.g. Below is the breakdown
a. Entered car park at 17:20 and went to B&M store
b. After that Driver went to 150 minute movie. Cineworld movie start 20 minutes after
the given time. So considering going and coming + 20 minutes of advertisements +
150 minute move. So the turnaround time is always 180 minutes.
c. Then driver went to Franky and benny for dinner
d. After that Asda grocery shopping.
e. Applicable and available bank transactions provided as proof.
I would like to appeal to POPLA because I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.
1. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
2. No evidence of landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
3. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy 4. ANPR usage
5. No grace period allowed/applied
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
1. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Met Parking Services must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.
Additionally if a genuine customer like driver in this case comes under such
circumstances where driver has overstayed unintentionally, are there any signs showing how to pay for overstay to save the penalty imposed.
2. No evidence of landowner/Authority to issue PCNs The BPA code of practice contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.
Met Parking Services does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Met Parking Services has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Met Parking Services to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Met Parking Services produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Met Parking Services.
3. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Met Parking Services to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that Met Parking Services produces evidence in response to these points.
In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Met Parking Services to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Met Parking Services to strict proof to the contrary.
4. ANPR usage
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.'
Met Parking Services fails to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Met Parking Services uses inadequate signage on arrival, as described in section 2 above, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system, essentially being a secret high-up spy camera, far from 'transparent', unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.
5. No grace period allowed/applied – BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The charge that was levied is unreasonable for overstaying in the car park. Because of ANPR, It is difficult to note down the exact time when the clock starts ticking and when it is going to alarm the bell of 5 hours free parking.
There was no ticketing system or automatic sign to show the time by which car had to leave the premises. Nor any signs of payment if you overstay in the free car park. Usually in ticketing system, it starts as soon as you buy the ticket but in this case, it should ideally start when I park my car not enter the car park.
British Parking Association code of practice (BPA CoP) states:
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is
13.4 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.
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. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read " observe the signage terms, before paying.
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. 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,” he explains.
“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.”
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.
So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes 'observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.''
“In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.”
Grace periods are not even mentioned on the signs at Car Park and the signs do seem to indicate that the period of parking begins when the vehicle is parked. So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of how long my car was actually parked for, and for them to state their policy on grace periods and how these are communicated.
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper sent by Met Parking Services to myself is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The Operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor, which requires words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... ". The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. Met Parking Services has failed to do this and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.
The Appeal
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:
a) As I have enough proof’s that driver was not a trespasser but a genuine customer. There is no way (described in the premises) how to pay for overstaying. The sum is disproportionate.
b).Met has failed to provide any information on grace periods and has not provided any proof for how long the car was actually parked. They just sent images of entering the exiting the car park. c) There is no evidence that you have any interest in the land.
d) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
e) I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully,
0
Comments
-
The POPLA appeal you used looks like quite an old version. Find a newer one! No need for any of this, POPLA do not care what the driver was doing if they overstayed 28 mins, also race periods can't be argued:I (keeper) have already provided proofs to MET Parking that the driver was a genuine customer not a trespasser by proving all the receipts after entering into the park. E.g. Below is the breakdown
a. Entered car park at 17:20 and went to B&M store
b. After that Driver went to 150 minute movie. Cineworld movie start 20 minutes after
the given time. So considering going and coming + 20 minutes of advertisements +
150 minute move. So the turnaround time is always 180 minutes.
c. Then driver went to Franky and benny for dinner
d. After that Asda grocery shopping.
e. Applicable and available bank transactions provided as proof.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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 CompaniesYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Hello,
I was wondering if I should complain to my MP as well regarding my case.
I parked at the parking and took my toddler for a class. when I came back the car was really hot (parked in the sun) so I was looking for a space in the shade as I had to wait for my husband and wanted to feed my little one and change her nappy in the car. for her comfort and safety i found a space (the only one) at the parking next to this one (if you didnt read signs you wouldnt even know they are two different parkings). I parked and dealt with my little one for few minutes before I got out of the car to see if i can use my ticket in this parking. there was a parking attendant approaching so i asked him. he said that its ok to use my current ticket, no need to purchase another one as mine is still valid for another hour. few weeks later i got a letter to pay £100. i appealed to popla based on advice on your forums here and they refused it, stating that i dont have enough evidence. i supplied my ticket but cant get the attendants name...what can i do?0 -
hi, and welcome to the forum ........
there will be plenty for you to read up on ...
but first you need to start your own thread ....
go to the newbies thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou
first and have a general read up
then visit the start page
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163&order=desc
where you will find the 'new thread button '
Oh ... and using a phone to browse the site can cause problems.. so please try a laptop/PC
HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:
Use the Forum Jump button (one near the top and one near the bottom of this page) to get back to the forum thread list. Just above the threads, on the right, is a heading along a line, next to forum tools, called 'Search this Forum'. Put your key word(s) in and change the default search from 'Show Threads' to 'Show Posts'.
NEWBIES - HOW TO UPLOAD LINKS TO PHOTOS/SCANS TO MSE
To upload a photo/scan link, you first need to host it on a free photo hosting site (like Dropbox, Imurg or Tinypic), copy the URL, paste it here, but change the http to hxxp and we'll do the conversion. Newbies can't directly upload links to photos/scans until they've a few posts under their belt.
Ralph:cool:0 -
Have you complained to the landowner?
Find out who owns or manages the land on which the car park stands, whether that's one of the shops or services you mention or a separate company. Complain like hell. That is where the details of this visit belong - in a vigorous landowner complaint. Any habitual custom is relevant too.
Although these complaints / requests for cancellation are best done before POPLA, it's most definitely worth a punt even at this stage.0 -
I was wondering if I should complain to my MP as well regarding my case.
Did you not read my post immediately above? I do not write these pearls for nothing you know.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Hi All , Received I reply from MET paring. Need a help for writing a reply.
Below is the reply
No Evidence of landowner authority.
We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence
pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses
for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form
contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
• Grace period.
The BPA Code of Practice states that a 10-minute grace period must be given at the end
of a permitted period of parking. This has been provided and the motorist exceeded the
maximum permitted stay by more than the 10-minute grace period. There is no
requirement to add a grace period prior to the parking event commencing.
• Inadequate signage.
We are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs in place in this car park that
comply with all relevant regulation and legislation and that the signs are prominently
displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our
evidence pack we have included images of signs in place and a site plan of the location.
It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with
the stated terms and conditions.
Failure to comply with ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR.
As can be seen in Section E of our evidence pack, the signage clearly states that there
is CCTV/ANPR in effect in this car park and that by entering the area motorists consent
to the recording of their data for the purposes of managing the car park. The signage in
Section E also clearly advises motorists of their rights in relation to their data and where
to find our full privacy policy. This information is also available on the Notice to Keeper,
a copy of which may be found in Section B. We do not believe we need to disclose our
privacy impact assessments at this time.
• No evidence of the period parked.
We would like to point out that the terms and conditions relate to how long a vehicle
remains in the car park and not the length of time it is actually parked. These terms and
conditions apply to all users of the site, including paying customers, and that time
constraints have been put in place to maximise the spaces available. We are confident
that our notice to Keeper, included in Section B accurately conveys the period of time
the vehicle remained in the car park.
• Vehicle images are non-complaint.
We are confident that the photographic evidence collected by our ANPR and included in
Section E of our evidence pack clearly demonstrates that the vehicle remained on site
for longer than the maximum permitted stay. As stated above, the terms and conditions
relate to how long a vehicle remains in the car park and not the length of time it is
actually parked. We are confident that the photographs meet the necessary
requirements.
• Unreliable ANPR system.
The cameras in this car park are peripherals linked to a local central computer and the
computer clock is continuously monitored through the internet. The images are stamped
by the computer rather than the peripheral therefore the clock is the same for both the
entrance and the exit lending the required accuracy for measuring the length of stay.
The BPA routinely and regularly audit our processes to ensure that we maintain our
systems in good working order and carry out the necessary quality checks. The audit is
part of the requirements that we comply with as part of our annual renewal of our BPA
AOS accreditation, therefore the motorists can take comfort from the fact that these
systems are independently reviewed.
• The signs do not state what ANPR data will be used for.
As stated above, we have included images of our signs at this location in Section E of
our evidence pack. As can be seen, our signs clearly explain that data will be collected
and what this data will be used for.0 -
Below is reply I have drafted to counter the MET replies.Please confirm if this will work. Thanks
No Evidence of landowner authority
1. In the document, it is written to issue PCN incase of overstaying after defined limit but the actual limit is not mentioned in the document. How Met calculated that it is 5 hours?
2. MET has sent a land owner authority after hiding all the major details.The document is not notarised to confirm the authenticity of the agreement. There is no way to identify the authority of people who signed the document.
3. the document is hiding the signatures's, Without the signature's the document is just a template but not considered as an actual signed agreement.
Grace Period
MET has said that is no requirement of providing grace period prior to parking. Though I already wrote in my appeal that
“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.”
Considering that the signages are high and very small in size, a motorist while driving cannot read all the signages, for that motorist has to enter the car park and park the car before reading the signages, so a grace period prior to parking is mandatory and as per BPA practice.
No Evidence of Period parked
MET has pointed out about the interval car remains in the car park not length of time it is parked. And There is still no reply to any proof if the ANPN has actually captured image on entry/exist and the images are not captured for any passing through vehicle
Vehicle images are non-complaint
There is no satisfactory reply by MET about Vehicle images except that MET is confident about it but they have not send anything to prove this. MET failed to prove that the vehicle in question was actually parked for the length but not entered and exited multiple times on the day.When council issues a PCN, they click pictures of the vehicle at the parking location to prove the vehicle was actually parked, not the way MET has sent pictures of entry and exit of the vehicle, which actually proves nothing.
Unreliable ANPR system
MET has send a document, which is signed in 2017, but no proof if the ANPR is reliable, date it last serviced or when it was actually approved by BPA.
MET says BPA is regularly and routinely audit there processes but There is no document provided to prove that claim0 -
Is that your response to PoPLA rebutting MET's assertions?
If so, it is too long.
The PoPLA portal only accepts 2000 characters and your submission is over 500 characters longer than that.
Check spelling, e.g. complaint/compliant.0 -
No Evidence of landowner authority
1. In the document, it is written to issue PCN in case of overstaying after defined limit but the actual limit is not mentioned in the document. How Met calculated that it is 5 hours?
2. MET has sent a land owner authority after hiding all the major details. The document is not notarised to confirm the authenticity of the agreement. There is no way to identify the authority of people who signed the document.
3. the document is hiding the signatures’, Without the signature's the document is just a template but not considered as an actual signed agreement.
Grace Period
Considering that the signages are high and very small in size, a motorist while driving cannot read all the signages, for that motorist has to enter the car park and park the car before reading the signages, so a grace period prior to parking is mandatory and as per BPA practice.
No Evidence of Period parked
MET has still no replied to any proof if the ANPN has actually captured image on entry/exist and the images are not captured for any passing through vehicle.
Vehicle images are non-compliant
MET failed to prove that the vehicle in question was actually parked for the length but not entered and exited multiple times on the day. When council issues a PCN, they click pictures of the vehicle at the parking location to prove the vehicle was actually parked, not the way MET has sent pictures of entry and exit of the vehicle, which actually proves nothing.
Unreliable ANPR system
MET has send a document, which is signed in 2017, but no proof if the ANPR is reliable, date it last serviced or when it was actually approved by BPA.
MET says BPA is regularly and routinely audit there processes but There is no document provided to prove that claim0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards