6 tickets issued in 8 days - is there a Data Protection issue?

Umkomaas

I sent an SAR at the end of November, still waiting to hear back. 

Probably won't be with you until the end of December, they have 30 days to respond. 

Robbo66

jordylass said:

Maybe the ICO, I want the landlord to understand what they've done is in breach of data protection and to take steps to make sure they don't do it in future. 

Check your tenancy agreement as there may be a clause that allows for the forwarding of contact details, for instance mine says

4.4.18    GDPR Compliance - The tenant authorises letting agent/landlord to hold my/our personal details on file whilst I am a tenant in the property.  I also give permission for my telephone number or email address to be passed to a relevant third party ie the Landlord, utility companies, local authority and necessary contractors. letting agent/landlord will collect and otherwise process all personal information in accordance with our privacy policy which is freely available to read on our website,

jordylass

I've not been given a tenancy agreement. 

Coupon-mad

jordylass said:

I've not been given a tenancy agreement. 

Why not? That is illegal.  Needs sorting.

jordylass

I've received my rejection letters by email today with the POPLA codes and am starting to draft the POPLA complaint.

How is the below as a starting point? 

Please let me know of anything I should add or change. 

I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Elite Car Parking Management on the grounds of inadequate signage, lack of grace period, improper ticketing method, and potential non-compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

1. Inapplicability of Grace Period Clauses:

The PCN cites a single contravention at a specific time, implying a breach of a "parking contract." However, the BPA Code of Practice regarding grace periods (specifically clauses 13.2 and 13.4) is intended for situations where a driver consciously enters into a contractual agreement with the parking operator. In this instance, I was legally parked in a marked bay on a public street, not within a defined car park where such a contract would be established. Therefore, the cited grace period clauses are not directly applicable to this scenario.

2. Inadequate Signage and Lack of Reasonable Opportunity:

Despite the inapplicability of specific grace period clauses, the spirit of the BPA Code of Practice emphasises the importance of providing drivers with a reasonable opportunity to understand parking restrictions and make informed decisions. However, Elite Car Parking Management failed to fulfil this obligation due to the following significant shortcomings in signage:

• Excessively high and poorly designed signage: There are no entrance signs on the street, and none visible from the parking bays. After receiving the tickets I went to the street to find the signs which were positioned at a height that severely hindered readability from a driver's perspective. The small, illegible fonts used on the signage further exacerbated this issue, making it nearly impossible to comprehend the terms and conditions without extensive effort, such as photographing and zooming in on the signs. This effectively negated any potential grace period that might have been granted.
• Confusing and conflicting information: The presence of multiple parking companies' logos and information on the signs, including references to OpenParking.co.uk alongside Elite Car Parking Management, created a misleading and confusing environment. This raised concerns about the legitimacy of the parking restrictions and hindered my ability to make an informed decision within a reasonable timeframe.
• No mention of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR): The signage made no mention of ANPR being used for enforcement purposes. Drivers have a right to be informed about the methods used to monitor parking, and the absence of such information constitutes a lack of transparency and fair notice.

3. Improper Ticketing Method and Potential Deviation from BPA Code of Practice:

The use of a handheld ANPR device to issue the PCN without a windscreen ticket being placed on the vehicle raises concerns about the validity of the enforcement process. The BPA Code of Practice states that parking patrol officers should follow specific issuing procedures, which typically involve affixing a ticket directly to the vehicle. The lack of a windscreen ticket suggests a potential deviation from accepted practice and calls into question the legitimacy of the PCN.

4. Lack of Clarity Regarding Landowner's Permission and Legal Standing:

The PCN fails to provide any clarity regarding the landowner's permission for Elite Car Parking Management to enforce parking restrictions on this public street. Additionally, there is no information about the legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management to act on behalf of the landowner in issuing PCNs.

4. Conclusion:

In light of the aforementioned issues, I respectfully request that the POPLA adjudicator overturn this PCN. The combination of factors, including:

• Inapplicability of grace period clauses due to the absence of a parking contract.
• Inadequate signage, lack of transparency, and a lack of reasonable opportunity to comprehend parking restrictions.
• Unclear landowner permission and legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management.
• Improper ticketing method and potential deviation from the BPA Code of Practice.
  
  

warrant a thorough review of the PCN's validity. I am confident that a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence will support the overturning of this unfair charge.

Umkomaas

You need to draw POPLA's attention to the low visibility of the £100 parking charge. You need to juxtapose that photo with a copy of the ParkingEye sign referenced in the Beavis Supreme Court case. Also, scan over the past year's POPLA Decisions Announcement where there are a number of Euro Car Park's cases where POPLA have found against them on the basis of the £100 being insufficiently clear on the signs. 

Coupon-mad

Point 3 has no legs so remove that. 

Le_Kirk

jordylass said:

I've received my rejection letters by email today with the POPLA codes and am starting to draft the POPLA complaint.

Surely it is an appeal not a complaint!

jordylass

Will this do?

I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Elite Car Parking Management on the grounds of inadequate signage, lack of grace period, improper ticketing method, and potential non-compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

1. Inapplicability of Grace Period Clauses:

The PCN cites a single contravention at a specific time, implying a breach of a "parking contract." However, the BPA Code of Practice regarding grace periods (specifically clauses 13.2 and 13.4) is intended for situations where a driver consciously enters into a contractual agreement with the parking operator. In this instance, I was legally parked in a marked bay on a public street, not within a defined car park where such a contract would be established.

2. Inadequate Signage and Lack of Reasonable Opportunity:

The BPA Code of Practice emphasises providing drivers with a reasonable opportunity to understand parking restrictions and make informed decisions. However, Elite Car Parking Management failed to fulfil this obligation due to the following significant shortcomings in signage:

(a) Excessively High and Illegible Signage:

Entrance signs are absent from the street and not visible from the parking bays. I only discovered them later, positioned excessively high with tiny fonts. Reading these terms requires extensive effort, like photographing and zooming, effectively negating any potential grace period.

ParkingEye v Beavis established that the penalty law is in play for parking charges and that a charge of £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It would not be a penalty or unfair consumer contract however if the charge was clearly brought to the attention of the motorist. In the Beavis case this was achieved by the £85 charge being in the largest font on the sign and in contrasting colours. 

I submit a copy for comparison.

 Figure 1. Beavis Sign                  Figure 2. Elite Parking Management SIgn

In contrast the £100 charge here is buried in the small print. As ParkingEye v Beavis is binding case law I submit the charge must be found to be either a penalty or an unfair consumer charge. I refer to the following paragraphs of the judgement to support this.

Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”

Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”

Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness allows the court to address considerations other than the size of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable

(b) Confusing and Contradictory Information:

The presence of multiple parking companies' logos and information, including references to OpenParking.co.uk alongside Elite Car Parking Management, creates a misleading and confusing environment. This raises concerns about legitimacy and compliance, hindering informed decision-making within a reasonable timeframe.

(c) Lack of Transparency Regarding Enforcement Methods:

The omission of any mention of ANPR on the signage constitutes a lack of transparency regarding enforcement methods. Drivers have a right to be informed about such practices.

(d) Incapable of Forming a Legally Binding Contract:

Due to the aforementioned shortcomings, the signage fails to meet the standards set in the Beavis case. This renders it incapable of forming a legally binding contract. Therefore, no contract exists with the driver to pay the demanded amount, and any additional punitive charges are invalid.

3. Lack of Clarity Regarding Landowner's Permission and Legal Standing:

The PCN fails to provide any clarity regarding the landowner's permission for Elite Car Parking Management to enforce parking restrictions on this public street. Additionally, there is no information about the legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management to act on behalf of the landowner in issuing PCNs.

4. Conclusion:

In light of the aforementioned issues, I respectfully request that the POPLA adjudicator overturn this PCN. The combination of factors, including:

• Inapplicability of grace period clauses due to the absence of a parking contract.

• Inadequate signage, lack of transparency, and a lack of reasonable opportunity to comprehend parking restrictions.

• Unclear landowner permission and legal standing of Elite Car Parking Management.
  
  

warrant a thorough review of the PCN's validity. I am confident that a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence will support the overturning of this unfair charge.

Coupon-mad

You've used the wrong photo of Elite's sign!

Remove paragraph 1. Not correct/relevant.

Remove that horrible word 'aforementioned'.

Why not just use the paragraphs already written and linked in the NEWBIES thread POPLA section?