Would like my POPLA appeal checking please.

dawn403

A notice to keeper was issued on 18th May 2022 and received by me, the registered keeper of xxxxx for an alleged contravention of “Breach of Terms and Conditions: The P&D/Permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking at Rodney Street – xxxx’. I am writing as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

1 - Hirer / Keeper Liability

2 – No evidence of Landowner Authority

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

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

5 - 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 or grace period.

6 – Failure to comply with Data Protection laws

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

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

9 - ANPR camera synchronisation.

 

1 - Hirer / keeper liability:
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no Protection of Freedoms Act (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. 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) - Euro Car Parks 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.

 

2 - 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.

dawn403

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

The first 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”.

4 - 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 underneath.

I invite Euro Car Parks to produce evidence of the original time stamped images showing the vehicle entering and leaving.

 

5 - 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.

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. 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP explains valid Entrance signs which in this case is not.

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 which is covered by appendix B on pdf link below.

AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf (britishparking.co.uk)

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.”

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:

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 stating the terms at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

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

This car park is accessed directly from a main road (Rodney Street) with a speed limit of 30mph. It is not clearly visible from the entrance off the main road. It is very easy to drive into this car park 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:

CSS Font-Size Test (mozilla.org)

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

Sign Letter Height Visibility Chart | Signazon

''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:

Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (5 April 2000) (bailii.org)

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.

dawn403

6 -  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: ANPR (britishparking.co.uk)

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 Euro Car Parks 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 Euro Car Park’s must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it. It therefore follows that I require Euro Car Park’s 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 individual’s right of subject access. 

Euro Car Park’s has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Euro Car Park’s 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.

 

7 - 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; Euro Car Park’s NTH simply claims that the vehicle entered [16:27] and departed at [17:31]. At no stage does Euro Car Park’s explicitly specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, as required by POFA 2012.

Euro Car Park’s 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. Euro Car Park’s, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Park’s 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, Euro Car Parks are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require Euro Car Parks 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 NTK.

 

8 - 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. The time and date stamp and license plate have been inserted into the underneath (but not part of) the images. In addition, both images do not even show a vehicle, only an inserted image of the license plate and time stamp. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by Euro Car Parks ANPR. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and Euro Car Parks claim was unauthorised. 

I require Euro Car Parks 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 Euro Car Parks 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 (01/04/2018) by BBC Wales Parking ticket system suspended after BBC investigation - BBC News 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 Euro Car Parks to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective. 

 

9 - ANPR camera synchronisation.

The operator is put to strict proof that the entry and exit cameras are fully synchronised.

It is impossible for ANPR cameras to be set correctly to the second - and they are not synchronised with each other either, to the second. It is therefore impossible for the operator to allege the car was there mere seconds more than the minimum ten minutes.

You must put Euro Car Parks to strict proof of camera synchronisation - ANPR in/out cameras are separate systems, running with separate clocks and the timing is also affected by buffering.  It is wholly dependent on position of the camera and any delay at the exit, such as waiting to emerge onto a main road/past a traffic light, which would easily add a minute which cannot possibly be counted as 'on site' when clearly the car has left the car park boundary. As there are no identifying landmarks in the photograph the operator is put to strict proof that the images are taken within the enforcement boundary.

This operator cannot possibly be expecting POPLA to accept that their timings are so exactly calibrated that they can pinpoint in/out timings to the second.  If they think they can, they must prove it with evidence and maintenance logs and detailed records about specific calibration of those two cameras at that site, on that day.

A recent BPA complaint ref 027063 involved NCP at the Imperial War Museum, with 15 cases of incorrect PCNs issued, due to the 'out' camera being a whole hour out with the 'in' camera, caused by a 'calibration error':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=142079

Coupon-mad

Euro Car Parks normally use the POFA and so there would be no point using 'They don't know who was driving'.

Paras 6,7,8 and 9 are not worth including either.

You are best getting the landowner to cancel the PCN when you complain.

Alternatively, concentrate on how SMALL the £100 is on the sign (read the most recent posts this year in POPLA DECISIONS about RCP signs and quote that wording!). POPLA will listen to that.

Why did the permit not cover the time? What happened?

dawn403

I am sorry, I haven't even tried to understand what POFA means. Do I need to delete all of the below in relation to; 'They don't know who was driving'. 

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no Protection of Freedoms Act (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. 

Thank you, I will delete them. 

I will try to cancel through the landowner but I have no idea how to find out who that is. 

The driver over stayed by 18minutes.

Coupon-mad

I am sorry, I haven't even tried to understand what POFA means.

Oh dear. Then you need to read the NEWBIES thread. It is explained there.  We do need people to read it before posting, or you won't 100% know that you are doing and will just lose at POPLA.  That's why it's up the top of the forum in capitals, begging new posters to 'READ THESE FAQS FIRST'.

There isn't a shortcut to getting this right; it needs a bit of reading.  The sticky threads (marked 'ANNOUNCEMENT') are pinned at the top of the threads board, always to be read first, to assist you.

Come back when you've also read the recent 2022 ECP 'POPLA DECISIONS' posts that I've already recommended that you read first, because (if you want to win) you are going to need to copy the POPLA Assessors' rationale about the ECP signs.

dawn403

I feel like my eyes are blurring over this now. I have spent hours on it. I have searched and searched and found so many various posts and copied and pasted from ones that I thought were relevant. 

Coupon-mad

OK.

But I'm only saying read two Announcement threads and I've told you the specific ECP decisions to look for in POPLA DECISIONS.

No wonder you feel in the back foot, if you didn't yet read the NEWBIES thread or any 2022 winning POPLA DECISIONS. Both are there to be read first.

This is why Announcement threads are pinned at the top, where new posters see them and should read them first.

Umkomaas

Check out the POPLA Decisions Announcement that @Coupon-mad referred you to. The last few pages (covering the past 3 months or so) will give you the killer blows dealt to ECP by various POPLA assessors.  Read and understand what they've put, then make 'Signage' (emphasising the tiny font in which the parking charge of £100 is shown) your very first POPLA appeal point.  Do you have your own photos of the signs showing that minuscule £100?  Make sure you build them into your appeal. 

1505grandad

Also if you are the hirer/lessee of the vehicle you can only refer to yourself as the keeper  -  not registered keeper.

dawn403

Thank you all for your replies. I have spent the last two hours redrafting a whole new one based on the recent one on the popla decision thread. 

I apologise for not reading the whole of the newbie thread but this is my third popla appeal so I thought I knew what I was doing, but I have found it has changed quite a lot since my last go.

I am actually doing it on behalf of my mother in law which is probably adding to the frustration as it has been many hours of work for me. We also only have 3 more days to get it in. 

I have attempted to copy and paste for review but it's late and obviously I need to split it down to fit in the forum comments box. I plan to do this tomorrow.

Thanks again for everyone's help.