Lamorna Cove ticket for legally parking in private space

goodneighbour

Yes we will do POPLA online but using Other.

I have looked several times at Newbies Thread. I see that I need to find a Template and have liked several times for the correct one for us but I also note that some people on the Forum are mentioning a Template NOT to use. Really not sure which one is the incorrect one.

I am doing this on behalf of my partner - the driver - English is not his first language so I need both to explain everything and to get his agreement. This is why I am apparently not following suggestions.
But now I can go ahead with PDF and will get it together and post here.

We are away for a week until the cut off for POPLA so I need to do this asap.

Thanks for helping

goodneighbour

OK so I have prepared a PDF with all that I can find that seems relevant to our case. The only thing that I haven't mentioned so far is that the Leaseholder of the private space received an email reply from the Landlord's daughter (who manages the car park) agreeing to get the PCN cancelled. She says she's doing it as a favour! But since then has not cancelled it nor replied to emails or our own letter. I do have a copy of this email - but the Leaseholder wants me to keep it private for the moment. He agrees that if we go to court it could be revealed. So, on August 22nd there was an agreement to cancel the ticket although she isn't specific about the PCN number or name. There have been several instances of problems since the installation of ANPR.

Here is the text of our appeal to POPLA.
Thanks for looking it over.

PCN Number XXXXXXX
POPLA Code XXXXXXXXX
Date of Parking Event 10 August 2019
Name XXXXXXXXX


I write to you as the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on August 10th 2019 .
I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Premier Park Ltd

On the 10th of August 2019 I drove the vehicle XXXXXXXX into Lamorna Cove car park. Arriving at 10:53 and leaving at 13:08.
I parked the vehicle in the private space reserved for The Magazine. This space is leased from the landowner Mr Roy Stevenson by Mr. Steve Grainger, owner of The Magazine. I work as gardener for Mr. Grainger and I have his permission to park there as his employee while I'm working in his garden.

I attach a letter from him confirming this.

I therefore was not legally obliged to buy a parking ticket.
I submit the reasons below to demonstrate that I am not liable for the parking charge.

1. The private parking space leased by Mr Grainger is already covered by the lease between him and the landowner
2. My employment at The Magazine and my contract with Mr Grainger permits me to park in his private parking space
3. The markings on the ground are unclear concerning the size of the parking bay
4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance is questioned on this date
5. ANPR images of vehicle entry and exit do not show location of parking nor that the vehicle was parked incorrectly.
6. ANPR images are not date and time stamped so are inadmissible.
7. Premier Park Ltd has no contractual authority



1. The private parking space leased by Mr Grainger is already covered by the lease between him and the landowner

Mr Grainger has a leasehold contract with the landowner permitting those with business at The Magazine to park in the allocated space.
The operators signs cannot override the existing rights covered by the terms of the lease.

I attach a photograph of the parking space where the vehicle was parked.
There is clear signage stating that the space is reserved for The Magazine Residence.


2. My employment at The Magazine and my contract with Mr Grainger permits me to park in his private parking space

I work as gardener for Mr Grainger and on the morning in question arrived to start work at The Magazine. I left the car in the reserved parking space and completed my two hours of work.

I enclose a letter from Mr Gringer confirming that I have his permission to park in the allocated bay.


3. The markings on the ground are unclear concerning the size of the parking bay
You will note from the photographs that the parking bay is not clearly defined on both sides of the boundary, but the sign clearly shows the area that is allocated for users of The Magazine

I attach a photograph showing the parking space, the sign giving permission to park and showing that there is one a white line on one side of this area.


4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance is questioned on this date

I believe that the ANPR system was neither reliable nor accurate on the day in question. Otherwise it would have captured the vehicle GC16 FDZ parked in the private Magazine space. 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. Another driver and guest at The Magazine was wrongly issued a PCN on the same day and it has been suggested that the landlord´s daughter
Sally Stevenson who manages the car park also on one occasion received a PCN from Premier Park.

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.

Prior to receiving the PCN I was not aware that ANPR was being used in this car park. I parked in good faith in the agreed space and am outraged to discover that the DVLA has disclosed personal information about the Keeper – my partner – to Premier Park.

I require Premier Park Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that Premier Park Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Premier Park Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: 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 this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 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.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
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.

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

5. ANPR images of vehicle entry and exit do not show location of parking nor that the vehicle was parked incorrectly.


The vehicle images contained in the PCN show arrival and departure time of the vehicle, but it does not specify where the car was parked. Paragraph 9 (2)(a) of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 requires the PCN to "Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

The use of ANPR in a private car park is regulated by the BPS´s Code of Practice and this PCN number 7193299 was incorrectly issued because no evidence of Location of Parking was specified on the PCN.
6. ANPR images are not date and time stamped so are inadmissible

The PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. The time and date stamp have been added above the images but are not part of the images. The vehicle in question could have been captured by APRN at any time or on any date. As a result these images cannot be used as confirmation of the incident and the Premier Park Ltd claim was unauthorised.



7.Premier Park Ltd has no contractual authority

As those who park in the private leased space reserved for The Magazine are exempt from buying a parking ticket, I would like to know how the contract between Premier Park and the Landowner operates.

Premier Park has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges. I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence. I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100. I do not believe that the contract allows Premier Park to charge £100 for a system or keypad error. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument. Regarding Section 7.3 of theBPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance: “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) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

goodneighbour

Hello

PCN Cancelled!

Good news! My partner visited again the landowners down in Lamorna Cove and this time was successful in getting the PCN cancelled! Huge relief for us after more than a month of worry and stress.

Thank you so much for the help and support and for this site full of information. I would definitely encourage anyone getting an unfair ticket to come here. In case there is anyone in the same situation here is a list of what we did/and didn't do. I know how over whelming it is when you first come here and try to sort through what action to take.

1. Made the mistake of naming the driver because we hadn't yet seen here why it is better not to. Reason - being the Keeper and not naming the driver gives you additional legal protection
2. Appealed for the Driver. Was refused. We were upset by this but now I know it is normal.
3. Wrote to landowners, emailed landowners, tried to visit landowners on three occasions.
4. Got together evidence including support from the leaseholder of the space. Took photos of all signage. Today also got photos of poor signage on the road to Lamorna Cove which wrongly states that Lamorna Cove has nothing to do with the parking. Obviously they do as they are the ones who got Premier Park to administer the parking in the first place.
5. Send off Status Access Request to Premier Park. I wish I'd done that sooner.
6. Wrote to MP with copies of all documents.
7. Started to prepare POPLA appeal with help from this site. After much reading and some nudging from others we realised that we needed to do this in a PDF and attach to the online form not fill in the boxes. The arguments are in legal language but are clearly used a lot and with great success. If you're not a lawyer it can be daunting but once you start it gets easier.
8. Final visit to Lamorna Cove. At last met the woman who manages the parking. Came home and a few hours later found PCN cancelled.

Thank you again!