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

jordylass

I've now received the SAR, all of the times of DVLA data are different. 
The copy of the email I sent to my landlord is there though
I now have the NTK to share, but only as a PDF, is there anyway to upload that?

jordylass said:

I only received a notice to driver nothing to keeper, do you want that?Coupon-mad said:

@jordylass - maybe you can help - I am still needing an image of a PCN (front & back) from this PPC for the thread below:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-2023-parking-firm-ntks/p1

Please post a pic of both sides of one of your NTKs here or there. Here on your thread is probably better as it may be useful for us to help you at later stages.  Sorry if it is already shown in your thread, I looked on page one only!

Coupon-mad

Screenshot (both sides).

jordylass

Hope this helps

Elite NTK 

https://imgur.com/a/EriONt5

Coupon-mad said:

@jordylass - maybe you can help - I am still needing an image of a PCN (front & back) from this PPC for the thread below:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-2023-parking-firm-ntks/p1

Please post a pic of both sides of one of your NTKs here or there. Here on your thread is probably better as it may be useful for us to help you at later stages.  Sorry if it is already shown in your thread, I looked on page one only!

Castle

You have left your VRM and PCN number showing, and I see that Elite are referring to para 8(2)(b) when it should be para 9(2)(b) for a postal NTK.

Coupon-mad

Redacted version below, thankyou @jordylass

They should not even be mentioning the POFA para 8 or 9 because they can't rely on it!

That's a non-POFA NTK, going by the so-called 'warning' at the bottom which doesn't warn about keeper liability.

Non-POFA. No keeper liability.

jordylass

A friend of mine also got a parking ticket at the same time, (helping me move in), I've been trying to help him with the info I've gotten from here but he's further ahead than me and Elite have uploaded their evidence to POPLA, and we only have until the 21st January to respond.  

Should I start a new thread, or is too late to do anything about it?

Coupon-mad

Start a thread and show redacted screenshots of the evidence pack and their photos, and the NTK.

jordylass

Coupon-mad said:

They should not even be mentioning the POFA para 8 or 9 because they can't rely on it!

That's a non-POFA NTK, going by the so-called 'warning' at the bottom which doesn't warn about keeper liability.

Non-POFA. No keeper liability.

Today is my last day to send in my POPLA appeal, how should I word something about this?

Le_Kirk

jordylass said:

Today is my last day to send in my POPLA appeal, how should I word something about this?

Full advice in third post of the NEWBIE sticky about POPLA appeal text and in particular when the original PCN was non-POFA and the driver has not been identified.

jordylass

I've had POPLA response unsuccessful for all, however the exact same appeal I did for my friend was successful on the signage penalty cost being too small. I know different assessors can come to different decisions but for the same parking with the same appeal and for it to be dealt with so differently is very disappointing. 

My appeal for both was the same.

Invalid Notice to Keeper:
Inadequate Signage and Lack of Reasonable Opportunity:
(a)Excessively High and Illegible Signage:
(b) Confusing and Contradictory Information:
(c) Incapable of Forming a Legally Binding Contract:
Lack of Clarity Regarding Landowner's Permission and Legal Standing:

This is the POPLA response

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal, which have been summarised:

• The Notice to keeper mis references PoFA Schedule 2 and lacks a proper keeper liability warning, rendering it non-compliant

• The charge is on a public street, so a grace period is inapplicable

• Inadequate signage due to being excessively high and contradictory and confusing information

• Entrance signs are absent and not visible from parking bays

• The £100 charge is buried in the small print

• The PCN doesn’t mention landowner permission or the operator’s legal standing to enforce restrictions

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant expands on their grounds regarding signage.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.

Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assesses all appeals on an impartial case-by-case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance, I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: XXXX which was issued to PCN number XXXX.

The appellant explains that the Notice to keeper misreferences the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 2 and lacks a proper keeper liability warning, rendering it non-compliant. However, as the appellant has admitted to being parked within their document submission, I am considering driver liability in this case. Therefore, PoFA would not be relevant.

I note that the appellant states that the charge is on a public street, so a grace period is inapplicable. However, the PCN was issued for parking without a valid permit. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 13.3 of the Code of Practice requires parking operators to allow the driver 10 minutes to leave if parking is permitted for a limited amount of time or on paid car parks. As the appellant has recognized, that this site was not a maximum stay or payment site. Therefore, a grace period would not be applicable. Section 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of 5 minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. As the appellant decided to remain on site and admitted that a parking event occurred, they accepted the displayed terms. Section 13.2 makes it clear that a consideration period shall not apply where a parking event takes place.

The appellant feels that there is inadequate signage due to being excessively high and contradictory and confusing information. Entrance signs are absent and not visible from parking bays. However, signs are sometimes placed higher so they are not obstructed by vehicles in the car park, and as further signage was made available for the appellant to view around the site, I do not consider that the placement of the sign height is done to unfairly catch people out. If the appellant could not read the signs and be fully aware of the terms offered, they had the option to leave site. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the parking operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by the parking operator, I can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that permits are required and any breaches would result in a PCN being issued. The parking operator has provided a site map and multiple images which show that signs are placed throughout the site ensuring that motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice.

I note that the appellant states that the £100 charge is buried in the small print. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. Upon review of the images provided, I can see the signage does display the PCN amount. I can see that the PCN amount is stated in white text. It is the motorist’s responsibility to read the full terms and conditions of the site and I am satisfied they would have seen the PCN amount if the signage had been read. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the requirements of 19.4 and the mentioned elements of Beavis have been met.

The appellant states that the PCN doesn’t mention landowner permission or the operator’s legal standing to enforce restrictions. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorization from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case, the operator has provided a sufficient document to show that they have the authority to issue PCN’s on site.

Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. While I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage.

Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms of parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

My friends case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal.

• There is inadequate signage on site. The signage is excessively high and illegible. Entrance signs are absent from the street and not visible from the parking bays. They only discovered them later, and reading the terms requires extensive effort, like photographing and zooming, effectively negating any potential grace period.

• Parking Eye v Beavis established it would not be a penalty or unfair consumer contract if the charge was clearly brought to the attention of the motorist. In this case the £100 charge is buried in the small print. They have provided copies of paragraphs from the judgement. This renders the signage incapable of forming a legally binding contract.

• There was a lack of a grace period. There was an inapplicability of the grace period clauses as the BPA Code of Practice regards grace periods are for situations where a driver consciously enters into a contractual agreement with the parking operator. In this instance, they were legally parked in a marked bay on a public street, not within a defined car park where such a contract would be established.

• The presence of multiple parking company 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.

• The omission of any mention of ANPR on the signage constitutes a lack of transparency regarding enforcement methods.

• They have raised landowner authority and said 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.

• The ticketing method was improper. The charge is unfair.

The appellant has provided an image of a sign, and an image of a sign from another site that they say complies with Parking Eye v Beavis. This has been considered in making my determination.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said the notice to keeper (NTK) is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), rendering the claim against them invalid.

The appellant has said while Elite Parking presents photos as evidence of signage, these pictures raise serious concerns about its accuracy and effectiveness. The left-hand sign shown entering the street is completely missing. This casts doubt on the completeness and reliability of their overall signage strategy. The operator’s photos lack any signage directly visible from the bay where their vehicle was parked. The signs in their photos significantly differ from the actual appearance and location of the on-site signage, and this discrepancy raises serious doubts about the trustworthiness of their evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. This PCN has been issued for parking without a valid permit.

The appellant has said in their appeal that the £100 PCN charge is buried in the small print on the site signage and therefore this is not clearly brought to the attention of the motorist as required by Parking Eye v Beavis, rendering the signage incapable of forming a legally binding contract. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorist’s attention within the signage. Attaching the importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage.

In this case, the parking operator has provided images of the signage on site. The PDF images show that the statement regarding a PCN being issued if the terms and conditions of the site are breached, and the PCN amount, is in one of the smaller text sizes on the sign. This is also placed in the middle of the sign, surrounded by more text. The photographs of the signage on site, make this text seem even smaller due to the position of the sign high up on the wall, appearing to be above a doorway. I appreciate the photograph is of poor quality and the text blurry, however, referring to the PDF image of the sign and determining where the PCN amount is on the sign, I feel it is not adequately brought the attention of motorists as required.

From the evidence provided, by both the appellant and the parking operator, I am not satisfied that the charge is appropriately prominent. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.