PCN to hirer question

Redx

Just crib from all the others on here over the last 18 months , its that simple

Coupon-mad

Yes, you simply need to copy a Hirer POPLA appeal. 

You could find one by reading back from the last page of POPLA Decisions until you find someone (a 2021 post) reporting a win on the basis of the PPC not including the documents required by para 13 of Sch4.

Puna48

Thanks guys, I'll have a look. Really appreciate it!

Puna48

So I read through some POPLA appeals and I think I'm ready to submit mine now:



Vehicle Registration:

xxxxxxxx 

POPLA ref: xxxxxxxxxx

I, the keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 26th May 2021 acting as a notice to the Hirer. My appeal to the operator – Gemini Parking Solutions – was 

submitted and acknowledged on 26th June 2021 but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 30th June 2021. I contend that I, as the hirer, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds: 

 

1 – Notice to Hirer non-compliant with POFA 2012

2 - Hirer / Keeper Liability

3 – No evidence of Landowner Authority

4 - No notification that ANPR is in use or what purposes it may be used for.

5 – Photographic evidence non-compliant with BPA code of practice

6 - The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

7 – Failure to comply with Data Protection laws

8 – No evidence of period parked – NTK / NTH does not meet POFA 2012 requirements

9 – Vehicle images contained in PCN are non-compliant with BPA code of practice

For the rest of the appeal where I state keeper, I’m also referring to the notice of hirer.

 

1 – Notice to Hirer non-compliant with PoFA 2012

 

My NTH was received on 26th May 2021. The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the PoFA 2012. 

 

PoFA paragraph 14 (2) (A) states that: The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13.2 and the notice to keeper

Paragraph 13(2) states: The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

The only correspondence I have received from Gemini Parking Solutions is the Notice to Hirer and an emailed appeal rejection letter. I have not received:

1 – A copy of the Hire agreement

2 – Statement signed by / on behalf of hire firm

3 – A copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement

4 – The NTK that was sent to the hire firm 

Therefore, Gemini Parking Solutions have failed to comply with PoFA 2012 and I deem this PCN not enforceable.

2 - Hirer / keeper liability:

 

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.

 

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

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."

 

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

 

POFA Paragraph 9 (2) (e) - Gemini Parking Solutions does not know the driver

 

Paragraph 9 (2) (e)

The notice must – ‘state’ that the creditor “does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper”’

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

With the emphasis on “9 (2) The notice must state” I advise you that such wording does not appear on the PCN as prescribed.

Therefore, the requirements of “9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) have not been met and therefore there is no keeper liability.

3 - No evidence of Landowner Authority:

 

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

The onsite signage fails to state any information regarding authorisation or site ownership to enforce penalty charges.

 

The BPA code of Practice states: 

 

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). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

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.

 

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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

 

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 authorised on the material date, 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 CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

 

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance.

4 - No notification that ANPR is in use or what purposes it may be used for.

 

The second line in the list of reasons for rejecting my initial appeal states “The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)”.

The BPA code of practice states that ...

“22.1 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.”

 

I have been unable to find any sign in this car park which explicitly mentions anything about the use of “ANPR”.

Also, as you can see from the photos, there is NO SAFE WAY to stop and read ANY SIGNAGE, if there was any, without ANPR taking photo of a vehicle. ANPR is taking photos of vehicles who hasn't even ENTERED the parking area yet.

5 - Photographic evidence non-compliant with BPA Code of Practice

21.5a

“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 parking charge notice shows two photographs of the vehicle number plate which allegedly show the vehicle entering and/or leaving the car park. However, the images have been closely cropped, in no way confirm the alleged incident and simply have some dates and times printed above. As those dates are on the black background, there is no proof that these dates and times are NOT DIGITALLY ENTERED.

 

I invite Gemini Parking Solutions to produce evidence of the original time stamped images showing the vehicle entering and leaving.

Puna48

6 - The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

 

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

 

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

 

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the lighter font style of the parking charge, which is illegible in the photograph supplied by the operator and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

 

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

 

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

 

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

 

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

 

Here, the signs are poorly placed, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is not clearly legible as it is  crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

 

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge (and does not feature at all on some of the signs).  Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed.  i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering. There is no signage at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

 

From the BPA approved operator code of practice (version 8 – January 2020) 

 

19.2 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. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area.”  

From Appendix B – “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a much smaller size.”

This car park is accessed directly from a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 40mph. It is not clearly visible from the entrance off the dual carriageway.

 

It is very easy to drive into this car park, shop and then leave either on foot or by car without seeing any clear and obvious signage advising of the terms and conditions.

 

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, 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.''

 

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I ask that the operator provides proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size and style of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

 

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

 

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

 

''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:

 

''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.''

 

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

 

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a '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.

 

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

 

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

 

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

 

So, for this appeal, I ask this operator to provide proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

I also ask the operator to provide photos how far can vehicle go on the land without ANPR taking a photo. As I mentioned before, there is NO WAY TO READ THE SIGNAGE WITHOUT STOPPING ON THE BUSY ROAD.

 

Puna48

7 -  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 Commissioners 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 Commissioners Office that the BPAs Code of 

Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:

 

xxxxxxxx

The ICOs 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 organisation using cameras to process personal data should 

follow the recommendations of this code.

If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate 

whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to

address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective 

solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on 

individuals.

You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the

schemes 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’re 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. 

 

The quotations above taken directly from the ICOs CCTV Code of Practice state that

if Gemini Parking Solutions 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 Gemini Parking Solutions must regularly 

evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it. 

It therefore follows that I require Gemini Parking Solutions to provide proof of regular privacy 

impact assessments in order to comply with the ICOs CCTV Code of Practice and 

BPAs 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 ICOs 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 

codes 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 individuals 

right of subject access. 

 

Gemini Parking Solutions has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the

keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Gemini Parking Solutions has not

stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on 

any paperwork, NTK / NTH reminder letter or rejection letter.

This is a mandatory requirement of the ICOs CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPAs Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keepers / hirers data unlawful.

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICOs CCTV Code of Practice, and 

in turn the BPAs 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.

 

8 - No Evidence of Period Parked NTK / NTH 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 / NTH to: 

specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of 

parking to which the notice relates; 

Gemini Parking Solutions' NTH simply claims that the vehicle entered [09:34] and 

departed at [10:06]. At no stage does Gemini Parking Solutions explicitly specify the period of

parking to which the notice relates, as required by POFA 2012.

 

Gemini Parking Solutions 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 vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay. 

Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. Gemini Parking Solutions, however, does

not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Gemini Parking Solutions to substitute entry/exit or length of stay in place of the POFA requirement - period of parking - and hold the keeper / hirer liable as a result. 

 

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

I require Gemini Parking Solutions 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 

NTH.

 

9 - 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 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 NTH in question contains two close-up license plate images. Both images do not even show a vehicle or time stamp. 

Given the vast area that has neither been 

bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by 

Gemini Parking Solutions ANPR. As a result, these images cannot be used as the 

confirmation of the incident and Gemini Parking Solutions claim was unauthorised. 

I require Gemini Parking Solutions 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 by. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, 

failing to produce such evidence would indicate the Gemini Parking Solutions has been using 

ANPR to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send 

NTK / NTH 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 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 

incentivised 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 Gemini Parking Solutions to produce strong evidence, audited by 

qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial 

objective. 

 

KeithP

I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be)...

Of course you are... you are the one appealing.   

You have stumbled across a really old appeal template there.

That phrase should be...

I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be).

You seem to be missing the long template section about poor signs.

Coupon-mad

I’d remove 7, 8 and 9 as they are pointless. You will win on point #1 anyway.

Puna48

KeithP said:

I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be)...

Of course you are... you are the one appealing.   

You have stumbled across a really old appeal template there.

That phrase should be...

I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be).

You seem to be missing the long template section about poor signs.

Thank you, I corrected that.
What poor signs template are you referring to?

Coupon-mad said:

I’d remove 7, 8 and 9 as they are pointless. You will win on point #1 anyway.

I thought the longer the better?
Do you think it's ready to be sent off, if I remove 7, 8 and 9?

Fruitcake

Puna48 said:

KeithP said:

I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be)...

Of course you are... you are the one appealing.   

You have stumbled across a really old appeal template there.

That phrase should be...

I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be).

You seem to be missing the long template section about poor signs.

Thank you, I corrected that.
What poor signs template are you referring to?

Coupon-mad said:

I’d remove 7, 8 and 9 as they are pointless. You will win on point #1 anyway.

I thought the longer the better?
Do you think it's ready to be sent off, if I remove 7, 8 and 9?

The long "Inadequate Signage" template appeal point from the third post of the NEWBIES, where you will find lots of other template appeal points as well.