Euro Car Parks - Matilda Street, Sheffield

applesponge

6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:

“On [DATE] the vehicle: XXXXXXX entered [LOCATION], at [ENTRY TIME] and departed at [EXIT TIME] on [DATE].”

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Euro Car Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed. 

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” 

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.  

I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. 

As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (XX hours, XX minutes and X seconds apart), it is vital that ECP produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

applesponge

7. 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. 

Euro Car Parks’ 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. 

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign in the Matilda Street car park (see Figure 2) states:

“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday including bank holidays”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states (see Figure 2):

“This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following may result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice
1. Display a valid ticket or season ticket clearly inside your vehicle or have a valid pay by phone session
2. Park only within marked bays”

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. 
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

and Paragraph 69: 

Contract terms that may have different meanings: 

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2) -

1. the commercial practice omits material information, 

2. the commercial practice hides material information,

3. the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

4. the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.'' 

It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.

applesponge

8. Driver had paid...

ECP to share full, unredacted logs of payments made on the date in question

ECP to prove the calibration of the payment machines, proving that the payment made by the driver was not incorrectly attributed to the wrong date / time

I will only flesh out this section if it is deemed useful / necessary

D_P_Dance

From wat you have told us, if this gets to court they are in for quite a struggle.  

Fruitcake

That's some darned good homework. I'll have a more detailed look later.

Yes, I would include the redacted bank statement showing that parking was paid for. This should be linked to Ts and Cs on the signs.

Is it possible to leave the car park on foot without passing the entrance signs, or any other signs for that matter? (Are there any pedestrian only exits?)
 
8 Did the driver pay, or was it another occupant of the car? It shouldn't matter, but you don't want to give even the slightest clue about who did what to the PPC.

Having no planning permission for ANPR cameras and control boxes is worth a complaint to the council planning department, but don't expect PoPLA to consider it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in your appeal.

Does the PPC have advertising consent for their signs? Not having it is a criminal offence, but only the council can pursue it, and sadly most don't bother.
Not having it (in my opinion) is a breach of para 12 of the PoFA as advertising consent is required in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Regs, which is a statutory instrument.
Again, don't expect PoPLA to consider it, but again, it should still be included in my opinion. 

A complaint should also be made to the council planning department, and the registered keeper's MP.

1505grandad

An observation  -  you should be using/quoting from the BPA CoP relevant to the parking event.

This is version 8 dated January 2020 so some of the CoP para numbers are different.

KeithP

Just to note that your ebay link doesn't do what you would've liked it to do.

applesponge

Fruitcake said:

That's some darned good homework. I'll have a more detailed look later.

Yes, I would include the redacted bank statement showing that parking was paid for. This should be linked to Ts and Cs on the signs.

Is it possible to leave the car park on foot without passing the entrance signs, or any other signs for that matter? (Are there any pedestrian only exits?)
 
8 Did the driver pay, or was it another occupant of the car? It shouldn't matter, but you don't want to give even the slightest clue about who did what to the PPC.

Having no planning permission for ANPR cameras and control boxes is worth a complaint to the council planning department, but don't expect PoPLA to consider it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in your appeal.

Does the PPC have advertising consent for their signs? Not having it is a criminal offence, but only the council can pursue it, and sadly most don't bother.
Not having it (in my opinion) is a breach of para 12 of the PoFA as advertising consent is required in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Regs, which is a statutory instrument.
Again, don't expect PoPLA to consider it, but again, it should still be included in my opinion. 

A complaint should also be made to the council planning department, and the registered keeper's MP.

All credit should go to the two people I've massively plagiarised - if I ever find their posts again, I will thank them first hand!

A pedestrian could skirt the edge of the car park and likely not notice the main sign, but there are no pedestrian only exits. Worth adding this in anyway?

The driver (who has not been identified) paid, am I better off re-wording this to state 'an occupant' though? The driver was technically an occupant of the car!


Thanks grandad and Keith for your comments too, I will make relevant updates!

applesponge

I've drafted this for #8. It's the first section I've actually written in full myself, so apologies if it's not as well written as the previous points! Any thoughts gratefully received. Ta.

8. Parking was purchased for the period in question, proof of which was shared with the operator.

Despite the poor quality, legibility, position and lighting of the car park’s signage, payment of £3.00 was indeed made via one of the machines in the Matilda Street car park, in exchange for the privilege of being able to park for all of XX hours XX minutes. Proof of this payment can be seen in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Proof of payment being taken for the parking period in question

Let’s compare the above proof of payment to ECP’s own picture of the signage at the Matilda Street car park (Figure 12).

Figure 12: ECP’s own image of apparent signage at Matilda Street car park (NB: this image was taken by the operator, not the appellant. This image does not show the same lighting and weather conditions as applicable to the alleged contravention, nor does it include any information as to when it was taken)

I will not get into the quality of the signage again, as this was discussed in length in appeal point 1, however I will politely point out that the quality of the image provided by ECP is almost as poor as the quality of the sign itself - presumably the image is so fuzzy as they have had to zoom in, because the sign is so high and inaccessible.

If one squints hard enough at the above image, it can be gleaned that the evening rate is £3, when parking between 16:00 and 09:00. 

The alleged contravention took place between 20:14:53 and 22:53:22 on 23/09/2021. As such, a payment of £3 (as evidenced in Figure 11) is correct - the vehicle entered after 16:00, and left well before 09:00 the following morning.

According to the signage in Figure 12, there are only two possible ways for a figure of £3.00 to be reached - either the evening rate, as discussed above, or for a parking period of up to 3 hours on a Sunday. The date of the alleged contravention, 23/09/2021, was a Thursday, and as such option 2 should be impossible to configure via the payment machines at the Matilda Street car park. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only way the payment in Figure 12 could have been reached was by navigating to the ‘evening’ rate. 

I require ECP to provide full, unredacted logs of payments made on the date in question, including proof that the logs contain all payments made at the Matilda Street site, across any and all machines. 

I also require ECP to demonstrate that the calibration of the machines is correct, in order to prove that the payment made (Figure 11) was not incorrectly attributed to the wrong date, time or location.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove #2, 4, 6 and 7 because they won't win and might distract the assessor.  No point talking about not knowing who was driving if the NTK was a POFA one.

Any chance it was simply a VRM typo?  Did you pay for the FULL time shown on site or is this about a few minutes overstay?

If it isn't an overstay then it must be a keying error (there is no other scenario) and you should state that and say the operator has made no effort to check for a keying error.

As such, a 'whitelist lookup' would be meaningless evidence because you can only think their old keypad failed and what they needed to do was to check for near miss VRMs and cancel the PCN if a simple keying error was discovered, or offer £20 if a major keying error was discovered.

The operator has done neither and there was no overstay, so the only evidence that POPLA and this appellant expect to see in this regard is a full set of payment logs relating to this site, showing partially redacted VRMs that divulge sufficient digits to identify any close match.

NB: you haven't got 2 cars have you? Could the driver have typed in the other car's VRM?  If so, state the other car's VRM here and ask that the operator also checks for that VRM matching a £3 payment and offers the £20 settlement required by the BPA CoP.