PCN by ANPR

rackemup

Hi - I received a PCN and require advice. Here is the communication I sent plus the rejection below. Any advice welcome

Ive had a response. This was my challenge: -




Submitted Information:

Parking Charge Reference



Name



Vehicle Registration



Email address



I am the
Registered Keeper


Please provide as much detail as possible on the circumstances of your appeal.
I am challenging your parking charge notice dated 18/02/22 on the following grounds.

1. There was no letter sent within the mandated 14 days of alleged offence taking place and therefore non-compliant to The BPA CoP version 8. This letter is a reminder and only received on 23/02/2022 and no NTK PCN has been served. Please provide proof of posting.
2. The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Please provide a breakdown of how your demanded charge is calculated so that I can consider further whether it amounts to a penalty. Furthermore, as a customer of the centre there has been no abuse of the facilities in place as a paying customer.
3. The contractual breach can have caused no financial loss whatever to you or to the land owner but if you believe it has please set out the details clearly in your response. If you believe I have committed a trespass please substantiate your consequential actual loss, considering this is for a retail park for numerous shops. There were, for example, unoccupied places available for others to park so my presence did not prevent the parking of other cars and their making of payments.
4. I saw no signage in the place where I parked or at the entrance to the area. The requirements are that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. Therefore I have not entered into a contract with you.
5. Having since re-visited the site and researched the rules I now understand why the signage was not clear to me at the time of my visit.
There is not clear signage at every entrance to the car park/ land stating the restrictions in force.
There are not sufficient additional signs placed around the area stating the restrictions that are in force.
The letters on the signs I did locate do not meet the minimum height of 50mm necessary for adequate driver information.
There are parking signs around the site that are smaller than the minimum necessary size of 450mm x 450mm.
The BPA logos are not clearly displayed on the signage despite it being a specific requirement for compliant signage.
You are using ANPR camera systems but this is not clearly advertised on the signage.


6. Having examined your parking charge notice I believe it is a non compliant demand for payment for the following reasons:
Your notice refers to an “alleged contravention” which is misleading for implying it to have been issued by a statutory authority. The term "contravention" which is usable only in penalty charge notices issued by local authorities is neither correct nor appropriate terminology for a civil parking notice.
There is no clear identification of the vehicle in question. The forward facing CCTV supplied does not show any registration and the rear is distorted. Please provide all the necessary evidence to demonstrate that the alleged has taken place.

7. I understand that a Parking Charge Notice must also include the following which is absent from the notice you have provided and therefore it may be invalid.
A detailed location of the vehicle
A statement that you will enquire from the DVLA details of the registered keeper


8. The rules of the BPA require you to allow a grace period either to allow a motorist to read the signs and make payment or decide whether parking is permitted, and at the end of a period of paid for time or maximum stay to allow for discrepancies in the time shown on different devices. A reasonable grace period would be 5 minutes but it may be that the owners of this site have instructed you to offer a different grace period. Please advise the actual grace period in operation so that I can assess whether you have acted reasonably.

9. If this challenge / appeal is rejected, to enable me to prepare a formal appeal to P.O.P.L.A please provide the following documentation:
A copy of your contract with the land owner which authorises you to act on their behalf in the management of this car parking area.
A copy of the contract which you allege I entered in to when I parked.
Photographic evidence of the actual signs in situ, together with identification of the locations around the site where these signs are currently placed. Please also confirm the date when the photographs were taken (if not evident from the photographs themselves) and whether you have made any alterations to the signage since the photograph was taken.
A copy of the full terms and conditions for use of the land where I was allegedly parked wrongly.
A copy of your certificate of membership of the BPA
A copy of your protocol which your enforcement and CCTV operators are required to follow.
A copy of your standard appeal procedure and confirm whether or not it complies with the Arbitration Act 1996.
Full details of the owner of the parking area (if it is not already stated in the copy contract above) as I wish to send them a copy of my letter to you.
A copy of all of the images that you have of my vehicle. I understand that the Data Protection Act entitles me to all of this information.
A copy of your protocol for handling personal data such as images of my vehicle. I assume that such data is not disclosed to any third party (other than POPLA in the event of an appeal) but please confirm this.

Please provide this information within 35 days of receipt. If you are unable to provide any of the requested documents please provide a reason for each omission.

I look forward to hearing from you.



Please tick this box to indicate that you are happy to share your information with Carflow and for Carflow to retain, process and store that information as necessary in compliance with GDPR.I agree
1

rackemup

the response: -

POPLA Appeal Code: ********

Dear Mr. *****,

Thank you for getting in touch with Carflow.

This car park is private land and Carflow has been engaged by the landowner to ensure that motorists pay the correct parking tariff.

1. There was no letter sent within the mandated 14 days of alleged offence taking place and therefore non-compliant to The BPA CoP version 8. This letter is a reminder and only received on 23/02/2022 and no NTK PCN has been served. Please provide proof of posting.

You have suggested that the Parking Charge Notice was not sent within 14 days of the parking event. However, this was sent on 09-Feb-22. The consignment details are below:

Feb 9 2022 **************************  

A reminder was then sent on 18-Feb-22. The consignment details are below:

Feb 18 2022 ********************* 

We use UKiMail (a subsidiary of DHL) as our mailing partner for our written correspondence. You can enter the consignment details on the DHL website (track.dhlparcel.co.uk/) to see when these items were sent. Enter the 14 digit number we provided you after the underscore (for example for 09-Feb-22 letter please enter *************. While the website recommends you enter your postcode on their submission form, we find it works more reliably with just the consignment number entered. as there are more than one letter in each consignment. Please note that each parcel is marked as delivered when it has been signed for by the Royal Mail staff at the regional distribution hub, not when it has been delivered to your address.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states:

“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered ( and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day in which I is posted"

As such the given date for this parking charge is 11-Feb-22, within the 14 day period.

2. The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Please provide a breakdown of how your demanded charge is calculated so that I can consider further whether it amounts to a penalty. Furthermore, as a customer of the centre there has been no abuse of the facilities in place as a paying customer.
3. The contractual breach can have caused no financial loss whatever to you or to the land owner but if you believe it has please set out the details clearly in your response. If you believe I have committed a trespass please substantiate your consequential actual loss, considering this is for a retail park for numerous shops. There were, for example, unoccupied places available for others to park so my presence did not prevent the parking of other cars and their making of payments.

You suggest that the parking charge is disproportionate. We would like to direct your attention to the Supreme Court decision "ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67". In this case, the judges maintained:

"With regard to Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”), the charge did not come within the basic test for unfairness. ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in inducing customers not to overstay, in order to efficiently manage the car park ..... The charge was no higher than was necessary to achieve that objective. Objectively the reasonable motorist would have, and often did, agree to the charge.

"However, the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin [99]. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices [100-101].”

We therefore feel that the Parking Charge issued is fair and reasonable. A copy of the judgment can be found here: (www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf).

As such, the parking charge is not in breach of Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and is fully supported by the Supreme Court.

4. I saw no signage in the place where I parked or at the entrance to the area. The requirements are that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. Therefore I have not entered into a contract with you.
5. Having since re-visited the site and researched the rules I now understand why the signage was not clear to me at the time of my visit.
There is not clear signage at every entrance to the car park/ land stating the restrictions in force.
There are not sufficient additional signs placed around the area stating the restrictions that are in force.
The letters on the signs I did locate do not meet the minimum height of 50mm necessary for adequate driver information.
There are parking signs around the site that are smaller than the minimum necessary size of 450mm x 450mm.
The BPA logos are not clearly displayed on the signage despite it being a specific requirement for compliant signage.
You are using ANPR camera systems but this is not clearly advertised on the signage.

Carflow have erected 70 signs in The Oaks Car Park, Acton. We have attached a map detailing the location of these signs in the Site Appendix for your convenience. 2 Pay and Display (P&D) tariff boards, 54 rules signs, 10 “Have you paid?” signs and 4 entrance signs were erected on 15th August 2019. These signs are clearly visible around the site and notify motorists that Carflow are responsible for parking enforcement at the car park. The purpose of the entrance sign is to notify motorists that the site is private land and is operated on a Pay & Display basis. The entrance sign also invites motorists to check the rules signs around the car park for further details and informs motorists that ANPR is in use. Our signage design and text complies with all requirements of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and includes the BPA logo on every sign. This has been confirmed by the British Parking Association. The Code of Practice states that signs should be 450mm x 450mm - our signs are 33% larger at 600mm x 450mm. The Oaks Car Park, Acton is private land and motorists should not assume that parking is free or otherwise before consulting the signs. Our signs are sufficiently visible during the day and at night should motorists wish to read them. Please find attached the Site Appendix with photos of the signs at night which show that they are clearly visible and legible to any reasonable user. The majority of these photos (see photo descriptions) have been taken without a flash and accurately reflect the light conditions in the car park.

Please note that all of your suggestions about Carflow’s signage are therefore incorrect.

6. Having examined your parking charge notice I believe it is a non compliant demand for payment for the following reasons:
Your notice refers to an “alleged contravention” which is misleading for implying it to have been issued by a statutory authority. The term "contravention" which is usable only in penalty charge notices issued by local authorities is neither correct nor appropriate terminology for a civil parking notice.
There is no clear identification of the vehicle in question. The forward facing CCTV supplied does not show any registration and the rear is distorted. Please provide all the necessary evidence to demonstrate that the alleged has taken place.

You have suggested that the Parking Charge Notice is non-compliant as it uses the term “contravention” which you believe implies that the notice has been issued by a statutory authority. This is untrue. Contravention refers to the failure to comply with a rule or a law and does not specify statutory authority.

You also suggest there is no clear identification of the vehicle. Infrared images captured by the ANPR cameras clearly show the VRN of the vehicle as *******. The images capture by ANPR have been attached to this email.

Please note that your previous arguments clearly admit to this parking event taking place, but suggest you should not have received a parking charge for this.

7. I understand that a Parking Charge Notice must also include the following which is absent from the notice you have provided and therefore it may be invalid.
A detailed location of the vehicle
A statement that you will enquire from the DVLA details of the registered keeper

Please note that a Parking Charge Notice does not need to outline the location of the vehicle within the car park. Carflow’s signage clearly outlines that:

“Tariff is calculated based on stay time. Please note your car park entry time to correctly calculate your tariff."

As such, vehicles are charged the total time they remain in the car park and the location of the car once it enters the car park is not necessary.

Furthermore, it is clearly explained in the terms and conditions that Carflow may contact the DVLA if a motorist fails to comply with the terms and conditions:

"This car park is private property. By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining on this private land, motorists enter into a contract with Carflow Ltd and agree to comply with the terms and conditions as set out on this notice (“The Parking Contract”), including making payment and entering your vehicle registration data via payment machines and/or terminals as required. If the motorist fails to comply with the terms and conditions, they agree that they are liable to pay a Parking Charge and vehicle keeper details may be requested from the DVLA."

By parking, you entered into a contract with Carflow and explicitly agreed to this possibility. As this information formed part of the parking contract it did not need to be included as part of the Parking Charge. Furthermore, the Parking Charge Notice you received states:

"As the listed vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of a private site, Carflow had reasonable cause to request the registered keeper details from the DVLA."

8. The rules of the BPA require you to allow a grace period either to allow a motorist to read the signs and make payment or decide whether parking is permitted, and at the end of a period of paid for time or maximum stay to allow for discrepancies in the time shown on different devices. A reasonable grace period would be 5 minutes but it may be that the owners of this site have instructed you to offer a different grace period. Please advise the actual grace period in operation so that I can assess whether you have acted reasonably.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice states:

“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

We do not disclose our grace period, but we can confirm that the driver has exceeded our grace period and the minimum 10 minute grace period suggested by the BPA.

9. If this challenge / appeal is rejected, to enable me to prepare a formal appeal to P.O.P.L.A please provide the following documentation […]

You have asked to see a contract giving Carflow authority to enforce on the land. Carflow are under no obligation to show you a copy of our contract with the landowner and the advice we have been given is that to do so would be a breach of our obligations under Data Protection Act as this is a confidential and commercially sensitive document. We have supplied sufficient evidence to the DVLA that we have authority to manage the car park, issue parking charges and recover charges due from drivers charged for unauthorised parking by any method up to and including by way of legal proceedings, in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. This is a prerequisite for us to receive vehicle keeper information from the DVLA.

Your contract with Carflow is formed of the terms and conditions as presented on the signage and your decision to remain in the car park. See the attached site appendix for evidence of this signage and its location in the car park including the terms and conditions.

Carflow will not be providing a copy of our BPA membership certificate and are not obliged to do so.

Carflow will not provide copies of any procedures and are not obliged to do so.

We are restricted by Data Protection laws and our duty of confidentiality to our client from divulging landowner details. You are free to make your own enquiries to ascertain this information, however we are unable to share this information with you.

As noted above, copies of the ANPR images have been attached to this email.

In relation to reasonable cause to retain your personal data, the following information is on the Parking Charge Notice:
"Carflow had reasonable cause to request the registered keeper details from the DVLA. If you were the driver / hirer of the vehicle (but not the registered keeper) at the time of the parking event, then your details have been provided by the registered keeper. If you believe your details have been obtained fraudulently or misused, please contact Carflow immediately. You may also choose to write to: Release of information, Fee Paying Enquiries Section, DVLA Swansea SA99 1AJ. Please include details of how the information has been misused and the vehicle registration number. The DVLA will investigate all allegations where information has been requested unlawfully and refer to the Information Commissioner for prosecution where appropriate. If you are still not satisfied, you should contact the Information
Commissioner directly at: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF. Details on how Carflow protects your data privacy can be found at www.carflow.co.uk/privacy"

and the following information is on the signage at the car park:
"Privacy Information - when you use this car park, Carflow Ltd collects and processes certain data in order to ensure that you are complying with our terms and conditions and to enforce these where necessary. We also use the data for car park management. This will include, for example, reporting on vehicle turnover and repeat visits in order to improve the customer experience. The data we collect comprises images of vehicles using the car park, the Vehicle Registration Number and times of entry/exit. This is collect via Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and/or vehicle photography by parking attendants as well as via payment machines or terminals. We may share data from time to time as required to support the purposes stated above. When collecting the data specified above, Carflow Ltd is the Data Controller. For further details, including information about your rights as a data subject, please call 0330 2234 178 or visit our website at www.carflow.co.uk/privacy"

rackemup

As such you have already consented to Carflow sharing your information with our solicitors, etc. Carflow are fully compliant with all aspects of GDPR. In relation to GDPR, you entered into a contract with Carflow Limited by parking in our car park and as such we are confident that we are not in breach of the legislation as we have a lawful basis of contract for processing your data as the registered keeper of a vehicle that parked in a car park that Carflow operates.

By entering and parking on this privately owned land, the driver entered into a contract with Carflow Limited and agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions, which are clearly displayed on the signs at the entrance and throughout the site. The full parking tariff must be paid prior to leaving the car park and the correct Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) entered. As a sufficient tariff was not paid for parking, we have no option but to reject your appeal. We understand your frustration but the parking tariffs are clearly displayed at the site and are in operation 24 / 7.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have two options; you can either pay or appeal to POPLA. You cannot do both. If you feel you have not been given a fair decision from Carflow you have the right to appeal to POPLA, the independent appeals service (see attached form). Your POPLA appeal code can be found at the beginning of this correspondence. You must appeal to POPLA within 28 days of this rejection notice. The quickest and easiest way to submit your appeal to POPLA is online at www.popla.co.uk. If you appeal to POPLA, you will lose the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate.

As a gesture of goodwill we are willing to extend the discounted payment period by 14 days from the date of this correspondence. Therefore, payment can still be made at the discounted rate of £60 until 16-Mar-22. Payment must be made within 28 days (by 30-Mar-22). If payment is delayed beyond 30-Mar-22, an administrative charge may be added for late payment and debt recovery or court action may be taken. Additional costs may also be incurred as a result of debt recovery or court action.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

Payment Information
Carflow accepts payment by cheque and all major UK credit and debit cards including Visa, Visa Debit, Mastercard and Maestro. We do not accept American Express.

Via the Internet
Please visit www.carflow.co.uk/pay-pcn and follow the instructions on screen. An e-mail receipt will be provided once payment has been made.

By Telephone
Please phone 0330 223 4174 and follow the instructions. Calls cost no more than calls to geographic numbers (01 or 02) and are included in inclusive minutes and discount schemes in the same way. An option to have an SMS receipt provided is available once payment has been made.

By Post
To pay by post, please make a cheque or postal order payable to Carflow Limited for the correct amount and send it to the following address, quoting your PCN reference on the back:
Carflow Limited, PO Box 76433, London, EC1P 1BB.
If you are paying by post, the letter must be postmarked before the date the charge is due to be paid to avoid additional fees for late payment.

Kind Regards,

Carflow Appeals Team


On 24 Feb 2022, 20:31

rackemup

Here are some of the signs at the area of the site in question 

Coupon-mad

How long did you overstay?

Was there a disabled person in the car who took longer, or a very good reason for the overstay?

What did the retail park say when you complained?

Do that NOW because it is the only way to possibly cancel the parking charge because this is probably unwinnable at POPLA unless a disabled person was (genuinely) in the car and needed more time.  Your appeal had no chance of winning I'm afraid. Not sure where you got is from but 'no loss' went out in 2015 with the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis and to talk about 'no loss' shows a parking firm that you are an easy victim, in their eyes.

Fruitcake

DELETE YOUR POST CONTAINING YOUR PoPLA CODE!

Do it now, or ask a board guide to do it (soolin or savvy)

You appealed as driver, so any PoFA failures/keeper liability points are irrelevant. I'm not sure where you got your appeal template from, but it is old, out of date, and throws the driver under the tram. 


Your appeal was rejected, so you need to make a PoPLA appeal if you do not want to pay. Use all the points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES.

What was the reason given for issuing the PCN?

rackemup

Coupon-mad said:

How long did you overstay?

Was there a disabled person in the car who took longer, or a very good reason for the overstay?

What did the retail park say when you complained?

Do that NOW because it is the only way to possibly cancel the parking charge because this is probably unwinnable at POPLA unless a disabled person was (genuinely) in the car and needed more time.  Your appeal had no chance of winning I'm afraid. Not sure where you got is from but 'no loss' went out in 2015 with the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis and to talk about 'no loss' shows a parking firm that you are an easy victim, in their eyes.

the overstay was 15 minutes 25 seconds since you have 90 minutes free parking when visiting the various shops. Obviously i don't recall the day in question nor can I imagine why I wouldve shopped for longer than 90 minutes at the likes of Wilko, Lidl and poundland but I guess that is irrelevant to the case.

The retail park was just a security guard on duty. he said that his manager wasn't there but she would tell me the same thing. They get people complain about this but theres nothing they can do as its privately managed.

I got this template from a link I found on this forum. I cant think where but I only found this one after someone recommended it.

I could go back to the centre and see if a manager is there to complain but if its anything to go by what the security guard said, she wont do anything. Its the oaks car park, Acton

rackemup

Fruitcake said:

DELETE YOUR POST CONTAINING YOUR PoPLA CODE!

Do it now, or ask a board guide to do it (soolin or savvy)

You appealed as driver, so any PoFA failures/keeper liability points are irrelevant. I'm not sure where you got your appeal template from, but it is old, out of date, and throws the driver under the tram. 


Your appeal was rejected, so you need to make a PoPLA appeal if you do not want to pay. Use all the points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES.

What was the reason given for issuing the PCN?

I think the popla code should be deleted now that I saw. I didnt realise I had put myself as driver, can the appeal to popla come from a different angle or is that set in stone now? i got the appeal template through this website from clicking links. it must be an old link. it was a template whereby you delete bits that aren't relevant.................

the reason for giving the PCN was that it was 15 minutes 25 seconds over the free parking of 90 minutes. The signs also state that members of the gym (on the same complex) get 2 hours. not sure why they get 30 minutes longer but I wouldve been compliant then. 

Any advice welcome

Fruitcake

Please tell us where you found the link to that dreadful appeal template. I am fairly certain it was not given on this forum, at least not since about 2013. It looks more like the gods-awful template that used to be on the "official" MSE parking page. We asked for years to get that one deleted but it never did any good.
I really hope it's not still floating around.

Coupon-mad

I got this template from a link I found on this forum.

Sadly, a wrong and very old one then, rather than using the current appeal template in the NEWBIES thread.

'No loss' went out the window seven years ago.

You also admitted to driving (more than once) within what you typed, which is why we have a template appeal to stop people doing that.  Too late for that now and it means you can't use the POFA argument about the Notice to Keeper not being served and not holding the keeper liable.

Any advice welcome

Sorry to say, I'd suggest you pay the £60 unless you want to argue it in court against £100 PCN (plus small court fees, taking it to about £175 all told, if you lost).  Your choice.

It is a trap in my view but the signs are fairly clear, you must pay for a stay over 90 minutes at £1.50 per hour for the whole stay.  Disproportionality and 'no loss' can't be argued.  The high but 'commercially justified' (Beavis case said) PCN sum is a disincentive against people not paying when they stay for 100 minutes or more, as you did.

At least in about a year it'll be £50 reduced to £25 (but £80/£40 in London) for new cases, thanks to the Government finally stepping in to regulate the rogue parking industry and stop this greedy crap.

KeithP

Yes, that appeal has a clear admission of the appellant being the driver...

4. I saw no signage in the place where I parked...