MET PCN at BP Stanstead SF CM24 1PY

Horseleas

@Cupon-mad I know I shouldn't admit driving. I will know better next time. 

I have also an entrance photo where the sign is not shown. As you drive and you keep to your right you can bearly see that sign in the left top corner of your window screen. Anyway, I am going to produce the appeal as the time is ticking.

Horseleas

Hello Guys this is my popla appeal please can you have a look and tell me if i should change something? Its quite long i worked on it for hours. 

 Popla Appeal                                                                          

Date:xxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam

As the registered keeper, this is my appeal about a Penalty Charge Notice issued by MET Parking Services Ltd for an alleged breach of the company's terms and conditions in the BP Stansted SF Connect CM24 1PY the xxxx 

The appeal to MET Parking Services sent on xxxx was subsequently rejected by them in a letter dated xxxxx

POPLA Ref: 3863xxxx

MET PCN Ref: AB28xxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from MET Parking Services Ltd. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1.     Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. 

2.     No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

 3.     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

 4.     Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

 5.     Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

 6.     No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2020 requirements

 7.     The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

 8.     MET Using Airport Byelaw for Claims

 9.     Attending to a medical condition is not parking therefore no breach of parking terms occurred

 

 1.     SIGNS IN THIS CAR PARK ARE NOT PROMINENT, CLEAR OR LEGIBLE FROM ALL PARKING SPACES.

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (19.2) states:

“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.“

The entry sign is placed at an impractical and dangerous spot where the car clearly needs to be in movement. There is no possibility of a driver reading the print on the sign while focusing on the road. It would be impractical for any driver to stop near to the sign to read the lengthy message on it without impeding other drivers entering a busy airport petrol station. Further, I would argue that any attempt to stop and read the sign from adistance that would make it legible would endanger the driver and other road users. Any driver entering the site would rightly have their focus on entering a busy petrol station, taking in account of pedestrians, other vehicles and any other hazards. Given the location of the sign in a non-prominent position, it is wholly inadequate as a method of warning drivers there are entering anarea subject to MET Parking Services Ltd’s terms and conditions. The sign at the entrance placed high up on a pole. When compared to my vehicle is it clearly significantly higher than a car driver’s eyeline, thus reducing the realistic prospect of a driver noticing it when entering the petrol station forecourt.

BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix states:

“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”

“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material”

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces in dusk or darkness. 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:

''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 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2020, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100, which is illegible in from the driver’s view at the site entrance, and is not visible from all parking spaces, and no prior notice that there are parking restrictions - 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, 2015.

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. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN#

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.  The signage has a standard white background with no reflective properties so unreadable without standard lighting in dusk/dark conditions.

Here at BP Stansted SF Connect CM24 1PY, if the signs are placed, they are placed sporadically, they are out of view of anyone parking and entering directly into the ‘M&S Simply Food‘‘ shop, the signs are indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. If they exist somewhere else they are unremarkable, similar in appearance to un-related parking signage, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with just 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.

BPA’s Code of Practice (19.3) states:

 „You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.“

There was no signs in any of the forefront parking area of "M&S simply food" which is where the car was parked (pictures attached) , nor in front of the entry door of "M&S simply food". Neither there is any sign referencing to BP in the window area corresponding to the shop marked as "M&S simply food", so it is unsound to pretend that clients will consider it as part of the BP site  

Therefore there was neither 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. For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park, and furthermore a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home “so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it” and agreed terms. I contend that this is not the case, and question the fact that the driver saw any sign specifying the amount of the ‘fine’ that would be due, and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

 

 

Please see below images of the area where the vehicle was parked:

 

Horseleas

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/2016, 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 operator’s 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 the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters that are approximately half an inch high.

I put the operator to strict proof as to the size and font of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself, and to prove the location and number of signs required to be read to fully read the full terms of parking.

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

https://www.acmesigns.net/post/letter-visibility

“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.”

“... Letter Visibility Chart shows the maximum reading distance for your sign to make the best impact, as well as the overall readable distance. A good rule of thumb is every 1 inch of letter height provides 10 feet of readability with the best impact. For example, 3” tall letters make the best impact within 30’; however, they can still be seen and read from up to 100’ away”

 “… The font type that you choose can also impact the visibility of your text. Very thin fonts and script fonts can potentially decrease visibility. When choosing fonts, you should select a bold style that is easy to read and with sufficient spacing between letters (kerning).”

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

 

''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.

 

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:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

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.

The relevent entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead, nor is it readable and understandable at all times.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict 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.

 

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (19.1) clearly states that:

“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”

 

Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and BP Stansted SF Connect. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (too high, on the passenger side of the vehicle, not visible from the drivers side), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.

Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and MET Parking Services Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

 

 

 2.     No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

 

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.

 

BPA’s Code of Practice Paragraph 7 defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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

 

I do not believe that MET Parking Services mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' the landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay MET Parking Services (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and MET Parking Services cannot enforce byelaws themselves). MET Parking Services have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that MET are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

Horseleas

3.     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 (22.4) states that:

“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

o   be registered with the Information Commissioner

o    keep to the Data Protection Act

o    follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data

o   follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s 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 Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (22.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

 

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:

o   Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

 

o   “the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

 

o   “If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

 o   “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”

 o   “You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s 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.”

 o   “If you are 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.”

 o   “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.”

o   “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.”

 o   “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 ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if MET Parking Services Ltd 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 MET Parking Services must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it. It therefore follows that I require MET Parking Services to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s 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 ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3) Staying in control state:

„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 code’s requirements in practice. You should:

o   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;”

 

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (7.6) Privacy Notices state:

“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.”

 

MET Parking Services has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, MET Parking Services has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s 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.

BPA’s Code of Practice (22.1) states:

“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”. 

The only ANPR signage we could locate on a return visit to the area was on  the left side on the pole at the forecourt entrance, approx. 1m in height, and there is no lighting above to account for being seen at any other time of the day than full daylight.

  4.     Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

BPA’s Code of Practice (21.5) states:

"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 unauthorized. 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 NTK contains two black and white photos of the vehicle. The photos bearly show what kind of vehicle it was. The front licence plate of my vehicle is yellow which is not shown on the photos of the NTK from MET Parking Services Ltd.

In addition, my car has a specific sticker in the back of the window (Photos attached)

 

 

 

This sticker is not on the photo so I believe this image is not trauwordly and was altered.

The photos don't capture the surrounding area or any details of the BP Stansted SF Connect, so there is no visible evidence what site the vehicle entered and left from.

As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and MET Parking Services Ltd claim was unauthorized. I require MET Parking Services Ltd 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 MET Parking Services Ltd has been using APRN to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send NtK with the aim to extract a penalty. Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.

Investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327

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 incentivized 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 facts above, I require MET Parking Services Ltd to produce strong evidence, audited by a qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

Horseleas

5.      Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated are still photos. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that individuals can see while on site in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.

Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site', this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park.

The site boundaries are simply not defined, and as there are several different services in the area: BP Station is the only one referenced in the sign. The driver of my vehicle parked in front of the other one, clearly marked as "M&S simply food", and therefore the entrance sign can not be guessed to include this other service, nor the clients can be expected to infer boundaries of the site from such a description. 

 

6.     No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2020 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 2020 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

 

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of

parking to which the notice relates;”

 

MET Parking Services Ltd‘s NtK simply claims that: „...vehicle xxxx arrived at (782) BP Stansted SF Connest, Stansted, CM24 1PY at 23:02:09 and departed at 23:50:32”. At no stage does MET Parking Services Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates' ', as required by POFA 2012.

MET Parking Services Ltd 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. MET Parking Services Ltd, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of MET Parking Services Ltd to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, MET Parking Services Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require MET Parking Services Ltd  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.

 

7.     The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

 

MET Parking Services Ltd’s NtK simply claims that „...vehicle xxxx arrived at (782) BP Stansted SF Connect, Stansted, CM24 1PY at 23:02:09 and departed at 23:50:32”.  MET Parking Services Ltd states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site.

In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, POPLA please take note and bin your usual 'ANPR is generally OK' template because:

The British Parking Association DOES NOT AUDIT the ANPR systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has NO WAY to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has NOT found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.

As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:

Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says:

"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said:

"In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate"

You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us.

This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.

POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 22.3 of the BPA Code which says:

''You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.''

„Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.''

Secondly, ANPR data processing and/or system failure is well known, and is certainly inappropriate in a mixed retail and residential area, such as the location in question. The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'' and they specifically mention the flaw of assuming that 'drive in, drive out' events are parking events. They state that: ''Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner''.

In this case, as the driver drove in and stopped where there are no signs  at all (not in the store area or near the entrance to the store) the ANPR system has indeed failed and the operator has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data from their system.

MET Parking Services Ltd is put to strict proof that the system has not failed customers of the BP Stansted SF Connect. POPLA cannot use your usual 'the BPA audits it' erroneous template which needs consigning to the bin.

Please show the above email from Steve Clark, to your Lead Adjudicator.

Kindly stop assuming ANPR systems work, and expecting consumers to prove the impossible about the workings of a system over which they have no control but where independent and publicly available information about its inherent failings is very readily available.

 

8.     MET Using Airport Byelaw for Claims

By claiming charge is liable to them, it appears that MET Parking Services Ltd are attempting to claim this under Airport byelaws. I reject this and put to them strictly to prove on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay MET Parking Services Ltd.

I also refer to Freedom of Information Act Request – F0013227 whereby the Department for the Secretary of State for Transport has categorically stated that no confirmation or change in laws since the Airports Act 1993 came into force, which empower any person or body other than the courts to impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), (2) or (3) made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 (as amended) and made operational on 7 July 2005.

Therefore, any breach of byelaws is a criminal offence, not a breach of any contract MET Parking Services Ltd may say the driver entered in to. If the driver is found to have breached byelaws 14 (1-3), the resulting penalty is paid to the government, not to MET or the Airport. Further, byelaw offences are decided by the court, not by MET Parking Services Ltd – the parking company or Airport can only allege the breach.

 

9.     Attending to a medical condition is not parking therefore no breach of parking terms occurred

 

When it comes to attending to a medical condition, it's important to understand that it is not considered parking. Therefore, there has been no breach of parking terms. Additionally, it's crucial to note that the location in question is not relevant land where airport byelaws apply. Stopping to attend to a medical condition is permitted, as it is a necessary action for the health and well-being of individuals. Rest assured, attending to a medical condition is not a violation of any parking conditions.

Driver had to do an emergency stop due to a low sugar level. Low sugar levels can negatively impact driving abilities. When blood sugar levels drop, it can lead to reduced concentration, impaired vision, fatigue, dizziness and slower reaction times – all of which  seriously impair driving skills and can be dangerous on the road .

In case of a low sugar level emergency, it is crucial to act quickly and responsibly. Driver was unable to continue driving due to low sugar levels and had to prioritize the health and safety of other drivers. Driver followed well known basic steps to stay safe and stabilize the blood sugar levels. Those steps are as followed:

1.     ‘‘Stay calm: It can be alarming to experience low blood sugar while driving, but try to remain calm and focused.‘‘

 

2.     ‘‘Pull over safely: As soon as you notice symptoms of low blood sugar, find a safe spot to pull over. Look for a parking lot, rest area, or a safe shoulder on the side of the road.‘‘

Driver pulled to BP Stansted SF Connect which was the nearest safe space with shopping options to purchase fast-acting sources of glucose or carbohydrates.

3.     ‘‘Treat your low blood sugar: Consume a fast-acting source of glucose or carbohydrates, such as fruit juice, glucose tablets, chocolate or candy.‘‘

Driver bought a chocolate bar ‘Squares Chocolate‘ to increase the sugar level in the body to be able to continue driving after experiencing all the symptoms mentioned above.

 

Please see the photo of the receipt

 

4.      ‘‘Wait and monitor: Allow enough time for the blood sugar levels to rise and stabilize before considering driving again. It's essential to ensure you're in a safe condition to operate a vehicle.‘‘

Driver returned to the car to eat the purchased chocolate bar, relax and waited until the sugar level rose. Driver had to wait and reevaluate. Driver had to allow time for the carbohydrates to take effect.

 

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

 

xxxxx

Registered Keeper

JerryJ64

What is POFA 2020? Did you mean PoFA 2012?

Horseleas

Cod of practice is 2020, POFA should be 2012

Sorry got confused a bit with all the information.  

Is it okay do I have to add or delete something 

Coupon-mad

No.

Remove 3 - 9 entirely and just copy a POPLA appeal that says the NTK is non-POFA and the driver has not been admitted nor evidenced.

Horseleas

But I did admitted driving to MET. Should I put it there anyway? 

Should I remove everything just to leave the first 2 points? Shouldn't I mention my medical emergency? 

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

No. Do exactly as I advised.