Permit Bay - Unpermitted

hopscotch69

so make point 2 be point 1 and attach the judgement as supporting evidence?  

hopscotch69

Is this ok ?  I will attach the full pdf version of the judgement pictured below along with anything else relevant (or not )

POPLA Verification Code: xxx

I write to you to lodge a formal appeal against a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Minster Baywatch, sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx,

There will be no admissions as to who was driving, and no assumptions can be drawn.

I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge based on the below points:

 

1. Minster Baywatch have no Standing or Authority to pursue charges nor form parking contracts

2. Failure to Demonstrate Keeper or Driver Liability

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

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

 

1. Minster Baywatch have no Standing or Authority to pursue charges nor form parking contracts

The contract on the sign is offered & managed by Bransby Wilson.  No contract with Minster Baywatch is in place therefore they have no authority to chase for this charge.

See supporting evidence in the case before District Judge Spencer in August 2023

Minster Baywatch have no Standing or Authority to form parking contracts or enforce them in court in their own name Minster Baywatch have no authority to issue parking contracts nor to pursue to court as required in the BPA code of practice. The Minster Baywatch Contract should be with the Landowner and not a company leasing the land. Minster Baywatch must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

 

7. Written authorisations 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

 

7.4 Our compliance team are responsible for making sure that you follow the Code. If the team give you reasonable notice, you must allow our appointed manager to inspect the landowner’s written authorisation.

2. Failure to demonstrate Keeper Liability:  The operator, Minster Baywatch,  alleges the contravention took place on the 21/12/23 and is further alleging keeper liability under the pofa 2012 so this notice should have arrived by the 4th January 2024. It did not. The earliest I as the keeper was aware of any charges issued against me was when I received a letter dated 26/2/24 which is well outside of the scope of contact. My address has not changed and DVLA had the correct address at the time of the alleged offence.

2. Failure to demonstrate Driver Liability: As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to name the driver, and the operator cannot assume liability without providing evidence of the driver's identity. The lack of evidence and failure to establish the identity of the driver further undermines the validity of the charge. 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.!

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 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 cannot 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.''

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

The signage and information held on the car park is confusing and unclear. It is in conflict with its own website data. There are some signs that prohibit overnight parking whilst others allow for it. You can pay for 24 hour parking but the signage in some areas states that 24 hour parking is prohibited.

The signage is attributed to Bransby Wilson but Minster Baywatch state the alleged contract is with them.

Some signs state permit parking only. Yet others state permit parking 7am to 6pm weekdays only.

None of these permit parking signs are lit or legible from all angles and in the dark.

There was no clear signage differentiating between the start/end of the car park’s bays and those (apparently) immediately outside of the car park. Furthermore, the lines that constituted the car park bays were drawn with the exact same colour, consistency, and pattern of white lines – and, what’s more, they were numbered *in sequence* with the bays in the car park. To be clear, this meant that the car park’s bays were numbered from, say, 1-15, and the bays that were (apparently) immediately outside the car park were then numbered from 16-25. Not only were the bays numbered in sequence, but the numbers also themselves were of the exact same style, colour, and pattern for the bays internal to and immediately external to the car park.

4. 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.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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

 

The driver did purchase a 24 hour ticket for the car park using the ringgo app as advised by the signage at the entrance. They then proceeded to a marked bay and parked. There was no requirement of them to display any tickets and Bransby Wilson would be aware of this purchase.

 

On the basis of the above and that a ticket was purchased I request that this charge be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

You have two points numbered '2'.

Point 4 repeats what you have said in point 1.

Change:

"therefore they have no authority to chase for this charge."

to

"therefore they have no authority to charge."

And remove all of this as it's not needed:

"The earliest I as the keeper was aware of any charges issued against me was when I received a letter dated 26/2/24 which is well outside of the scope of contact. My address has not changed and DVLA had the correct address at the time of the alleged offence."

hopscotch69

This may be my final version unless anyone has any other advice or comments. Thanks coupon-mad for your help.  

POPLA Verification Code: xxx

I write to you to lodge a formal appeal against a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Minster Baywatch, sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx,

There will be no admissions as to who was driving, and no assumptions can be drawn.

I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge based on the below points:

 

1. Minster Baywatch have no Standing or Authority to pursue charges nor form parking contracts

2. Failure to Demonstrate Keeper or Driver Liability

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

 

1. Minster Baywatch have no Standing or Authority to pursue charges nor form parking contracts

The contract on the sign is offered & managed by Bransby Wilson.  No contract with Minster Baywatch is in place therefore they have no authority to charge.

See supporting evidence in the case before District Judge Spencer in August 2023

Minster Baywatch have no Standing or Authority to form parking contracts or enforce them in court in their own name. Minster Baywatch have no authority to issue parking contracts nor to pursue to court as required in the BPA code of practice. The Minster Baywatch Contract should be with the Landowner and not a company leasing the land. Minster Baywatch must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

7. Written authorisations 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

 

7.4 Our compliance team are responsible for making sure that you follow the Code. If the team give you reasonable notice, you must allow our appointed manager to inspect the landowner’s written authorisation.

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:

 

2a. Failure to demonstrate Keeper Liability:  The operator, Minster Baywatch,  alleges the contravention took place on the 21/12/23 and is further alleging keeper liability under the pofa 2012 so this notice should have arrived by the 4th January 2024. It did not.

2b. Failure to demonstrate Driver Liability: As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to name the driver, and the operator cannot assume liability without providing evidence of the driver's identity. The lack of evidence and failure to establish the identity of the driver further undermines the validity of the charge. 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.!

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 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 cannot 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.''

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

The signage and information held on the car park is confusing and unclear. It is in conflict with its own website data. There are some signs that prohibit overnight parking whilst others allow for it. You can pay for 24 hour parking but the signage in some areas states that 24 hour parking is prohibited.

The signage is attributed to Bransby Wilson but Minster Baywatch state the alleged contract is with them.

Some signs state permit parking only. Yet others state permit parking 7am to 6pm weekdays only.

None of these permit parking signs are lit or legible from all angles and in the dark.

There was no clear signage differentiating between the start/end of the car park’s bays and those (apparently) immediately outside of the car park. Furthermore, the lines that constituted the car park bays were drawn with the exact same colour, consistency, and pattern of white lines – and, what’s more, they were numbered *in sequence* with the bays in the car park. To be clear, this meant that the car park’s bays were numbered from, say, 1-15, and the bays that were (apparently) immediately outside the car park were then numbered from 16-25. Not only were the bays numbered in sequence, but the numbers also themselves were of the exact same style, colour, and pattern for the bays internal to and immediately external to the car park.

It is not clear which bays were permit parking only, which are assigned to the evenings and weekends, which are for 24 hour parking and which are for staff only.  No signs are clear or lit at night and were not visible from all angles and from all spaces

See the attached files A through to F for reference

 

The driver did purchase a 24 hour ticket for the car park using the ringgo app as advised by the signage at the entrance. They then proceeded to a marked bay and parked. There was no requirement of them to display any tickets and Bransby Wilson would be aware of this purchase. See attached receipt from Branby Wilson for this purchase.

On the basis of the above and that a ticket was purchased I request that this charge be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

I don't like 'attributed by:

The signage is attributed to Bransby Wilson but Minster Baywatch state the alleged contract is with them.

Change to:

The signage names Bransby Wilson Ltd as offering the terms and managing the site. Even if there was a contract, Minster Baywatch are a stranger to it, or at best, just an agent.  There are no terms stating that the driver agrees to contract with this operator.  The PCN has not been properly given.

hopscotch69

Having submitted my popla appeal the ppc responded with a 50 page document within days. I am a bit overwhelmed!

On the xxxx, the appellants vehicle (xxxx) received an MNPR charge at our York, 21 Priory Street site for a valid permit was not clearly on display at the car park. As can be seen by the MNPR photographs the vehicle was observed from 11xxx until 11xxx. The vehicle was observed for a total of xx minutes and xx seconds. The vehicle was not authorised as it did not fully comply with the terms and conditions of parking on the site. As such, a Parking Charge Notice was issued.
The appellant has broadly appealed this charge on the following basis:
1. In the appellants appeal to POPLA they state that Minster Baywatch have no standing or Authority to pursue charges nor form parking contracts. They state that the contract on the sign is offered and managed by Bransby Wilson and no contract with Minster Baywatch is in lace therefore Minster Baywatch have no authority to charge. They refer to and have provided evidence of a case from August 2023. 
2. They also state that Minster Baywatch has failed to demonstrate Keeper or Driver liability. They state that Minster Baywatch is alleging keeper liability under PoFa 2012 but as the contravention took place on 21/12/2023 the Notice to Keeper should have arrived by the 4th of January, they state that it did not. They also state that as the registered keeper of the vehicle they are under no legal obligation to name the driver, and the operator cannot assume liability without providing evidence of the driver's identity. The lack of evidence and failure to establish the identity of the driver further undermines the validity of the charge. 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 they confirm that they were, but they are exercising their right not to name the driver.
3. The appellant also states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces. They also state that the signage and information held on the car park is confusing and unclear. The signage names Bransby Wilson Ltd as offering the terms and managing the site. Even if there was a contract, Minster Baywatch are a stranger to it, or at best, just an agent, there are no terms stating that the driver agrees to contract with this operator. No signs are clear or lit at night and are not visible from all angles and from all spaces. The driver did purchase a 24-hour ticket for the car park using the RingGo app as advised by the signage at the entrance, they then proceeded to a marked bay and parked.
In response, Minster Baywatch will state the following:
1. Minster Baywatch refers POPLA to the agreement which shows that Minster Baywatch can enforce on the site. Minster Baywatch also refers POPLA to the site photos which shows the enforcement signs for the site which are Minster Baywatch signs, the signage terms and conditions clearly state 'Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf. The parking terms and conditions are set out within this notice (the “Parking Contract”). By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this car park, you are entering into and are bound by the terms of the Parking Contract'. The Bransby Wilson sign that the appellant refers to and has provided evidence of is for the Pay and Stay car park which is separate to the permit only area that the vehicle was observed to be parked in. Minster Baywatch also refers POPLA to the site photos which shows the site map that clearly indicates that the Pay and Stay car park and the Permit Only car park are separate from each other. Minster Baywatch also states that the case the appellant refers to is not relevant as the signs do state Minster Baywatch.
2. Minster Baywatch refers POPLA to the Notice to Keeper letter which was sent on the xxth of December 2023, 6 days after the contravention took place. The letter was sent the address that the vehicle is registered to, this information was received from the DVLA. As the Notice to Keeper was sent within the 14 days stipulated by PoFa 2012 as no driver details have been provided the keeper can be held liable, something that the Notice to Keeper clearly states 'You are notified under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, that you are now required to do one of the following: pay the outstanding amount if you were the driver of the vehicle; if you were not the driver, provide us with the full name of the driver of the vehicle along with their current address where a notice can be served — you should also pass this notice to the driver'. As the appellant stated that they had not received this letter the PCN was reduced back to the lower amount of £60 and the option to appeal the charge was offered.
3. Minster Baywatch states that the enforcement signs (Minster Baywatch signs) are in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Point 19.3 which requires the signs to be a minimum of 450mm x 450mm, the signs at the site are larger than this at 600mm x 600m and are retro-reflective meaning Section A 06/03/2024 3 of 46 Evidence_71040157_06-03-2024.pdf that they are made visible to drivers by the vehicle’s headlights during the hours of darkness. Minster Baywatch also refers POPLA to the photos of the vehicle taken at the time of the contravention which shows the vehicle is parked next to a 'PERMIT PARKING' sign that states 'All vehicles must clearly display a valid permit or if appropriate be included on an authorised user list', therefore the appellant stating that signs are not visible from all angles and from all spaces is not relevant. As the vehicle was observed to not be clearly displaying a permit the vehicle was in breach of the site rules and was issued a PCN. Minster Baywatch also states that the contravention took place during the hours of daylight as such the appellant stating that no signs are clear or lit at night is not relevant. POPLA has been provided a copy of our daily entry log for this site. No entry is similar to the VRM of the vehicle. The site consideration period is 10 minutes
For the above reasons the PCN was correctly issued, and the appeal correctly declined. POPLA is referred to the rest of our evidence bundle.

hopscotch69

Do you think I can use this, taken from another user? 

This was not a car park with ANPR cameras. An operative may have taken manual photographs and the NTK says it was a ‘drive away’. So it is a non-ANPR case for which there MUST be a Notice to Driver served first and 28 days allowed for the driver to appeal or pay. VCS had no reason to obtain my data until 28 days had elapsed after a PCN had been served (and there was no PCN served so this should never have progressed). This is also a DVLA and ICO rules breach.

VCS have made a mockery of the DVLA KADOE contract, their ICO registration, the POFA, the BPA CoP and Consumer Protection regulations so I am certain POPLA will agree and uphold my appeal. I believe this is a case that should also be raised to the attention of the Lead Adjudicator for his next report and for POPLA to forward to the BPA as an example of expressly disallowed procedures, notwithstanding the fact that VCS have now ceased their BPA membership.

The PPC allege that the car park and the permit sections are operated by Bransby and Minster respectively and are two seperate areas (see above) . The ANPR system (I think) is attached to the car park but the permit section where they allege I parked without a permit isn't monitored by anpr. Thus when they photographed my car at the time of the contravention they should also have applied a PCN . They didn't. They should not have written to dvla until 28 days later. They say they obtained my details 6 days after the event. Aren't they mixing up what they can and can't do here?  Or am I misunderstanding this? 

Coupon-mad

No they don't have to attach a PCN to the windscreen.

hopscotch69

That's a shame! I will concentrate on the lighting issue then and the signage.  Any other tips? I posted their response above.  

Coupon-mad

hopscotch69 said:

"The Bransby Wilson sign that the appellant refers to and has provided evidence of is for the Pay and Stay car park which is separate to the permit only area that the vehicle was observed to be parked in.

Minster Baywatch also refers POPLA to the site photos which shows the site map that clearly indicates that the Pay and Stay car park and the Permit Only car park are separate from each other."

"POPLA has been provided a copy of our daily entry log for this site. No entry is similar to the VRM of the vehicle."

Respond to the above two pieces of evidence.  Have they shown proof of which half your car was actually parked in?

Why are you alleging that there's a lighting issue with the signs, if it was daylight?