Parking Eye PCN, 15 minute overstay, POPLA Stage

321money_spending_expert123

Hi all,

First draft available here, I'd really appreciate any comments, things worth mentioning/ expanding on.

Thanks!

POPLA Verification Number:

Vehicle Registration:

I, the registered keeper of the vehicle, received a letter dated 19/04/2024 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator- ParkingEye (Hereafter referred to as the Operator)- was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 23/04/2024 and rejected via an email on 03/05/2024. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver's identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from myself as the registered keeper. 

I am appealing this because a payment was made indicating the intent to pay as an honest customer and the PCN does not adhere to BPA Grace Periods, the NTK does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) paragraph 9, the Operator is not following the BPA Code of Practice, and because they have not, and cannot, prove that my vehicle was parked for the alleged contravention. 

I contend that I, the registered keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal it on the following grounds:

1. NTK does not meet PoFA requirements

2. Grace Period- BPA CoP non-compliance

3. Vehicle images contained in NTK: BPA Code of Practice- Non-compliance

4. The ANPR system in neither reliable nor accurate

5. No landowner authority

1. NTK does not meet PoFA requirements so there is no keeper liability

Euro Car Parks have failed to comply with the strict protocols of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. The NTK in question is included in Appendix 1 of this document. PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 states (note the text in bold):

9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—

(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

The NTK received clearly states a time period of 29 days and as such does not comply with the requirement above and the NTK is therefore non-compliant.

2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice states(13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that: “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that: “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that: “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that: “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park,you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

A receipt is attached in figure 1 indicating parking for a period of 4 hours was purchased. It is clear from the time of purchase that the ticket was purchased some 1 hour and 52 minutes after  entry to the car park, therefore the evidence would suggest that a significant time from entering the car park to actually being able to park. Given the above, the grace period more than sufficiently covers the duration of the purchased tariff. 

3. Vehicle images contained in NTK: BPA Code of Practice- Non-compliance

The Only Evidence provided for the alleged contravention, which appears to hingeon a matter of minutes, is based on images from an ANPR camera.The images provided in the NTK are not compliant with the BPA code of practice. 

The BPA Code of Practice point 21.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and timestamp 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 in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph”and they do not show what the vehicle was doing (they don’t show the vehicle at all!). It is plain that they do not clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving this car park, and they could come from any location. A date and time is given on the NTK above (but not part of) the images. The images have presumably been cropped (i.e., digitally altered, which is expressly forbidden in the BPA Code of Practice above). As such they are not the original images. I require the Operator to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

As recently as February 2024, in POPLA appeal case 2413353469, the appeal was upheld due to similar non-compliance as that outlined above.

4. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate

The NTK states “Entry” and “Exit” time based on images of a car in motion on a road. These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By the Operator’s own admission on the NTK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. As explained above, there is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a),which states the NTK must;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

It is quite possible that, when looking for a space or making the parking decision, my vehicle entered or exited the car park on more than one occasion. There are a number of documented cases where parking companies have incorrectly logged such multiple visits.I therefore require the Operator to provide detailed evidence to prove that this was not multiple visits but in fact a single visit. This Evidence could include a partially redacted list of all the entry and exit events which the Operator claims to have logged at this time.

Paragraph 22.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require NCP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.If the Operator is relying on matching these timestamps to the time at which a ticket was purchased, then they must also provide records of how these cameras were synchronised with the payment system. 

As ‘grace periods’ are of significant importance in this case, and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (and an alleged overstay of a matter of minutes),it is vital that the Operator produce the evidence requested in the previous two paragraphs.

5. No Landowner Authority

There is no evidence of landowner authority and so the operator is put to strict proof of 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 or charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times, permitted waiting periods, grace periods, and the boundary of the site) are 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 was 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 found 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 are especially pertinent in the current case) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in smallprint on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 2020 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”


KeithP

321money_spending_expert123 said:

I contend that I, the registered keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal it on the following grounds:

1. NTK does not meet PoFA requirements

2. Grace Period- BPA CoP non-compliance

3. Vehicle images contained in NTK: BPA Code of Practice- Non-compliance

4. The ANPR system in neither reliable nor accurate

5. No landowner authority

Nothing about the poor quality of the signs?

321money_spending_expert123

I thought about how to word it but wasn’t sure if how to go about it.

The sign states the first 2 hours are free.

Then lists all the times/tariffs

then beneath in a smaller font, it says ‘All tariffs include the first 2 free hours’.

How would you argue this? I wasn’t sure whether being misled by the 2 hours free line would be relevant?

KeithP

Well here's a couple of lines from the third post of the NEWBIES thread...

Signage (I deliberately go to town in this section, don't cut it down!):
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341

Hardly any thinking needed.  

1505grandad

"Euro Car Parks have failed to comply......." ?

Coupon-mad

Yep this is wrong and what makes you use this first point anyway?  ParkingEye 'golden tickets' are shown in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread, so do you actually have one?

1. NTK does not meet PoFA requirements so there is no keeper liability

Euro Car Parks have failed"

321money_spending_expert123

Thanks, apologies, mistype there after reading other examples. I will correct that…

The NTK seems to adhere to PoFA except for pointing out a different number of days to comply… I assumed any deviation from the PoFA wording is worth pointing out?

Coupon-mad

I doubt it is non-compliant and I wouldn't distract POPLA with points that can't win.

321money_spending_expert123

Thanks, I just read some further examples, is it worth putting the below in?

1. The NTK is not compliant to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the wording used 

The PCN fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe the unpaid parking charges that they allege were unpaid at the machine. 7(2)states: ’’The notice must-(b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges,the circumstances in which the requirement arose...and the other facts that made those charges payable...’’ 

This NTK stated that ‘’either’’ there was not appropriate parking time purchased ‘’or’’ the vehicle remained longer than permitted (neither of which is a ‘fact’).In their rejection letter the Operator revealed too late that they contend that ‘insufficient time was paid for’ on the date in question. This is an alleged ‘fact’ that the NTK failed to state in the first place. If this operator should change their story yet again for POPLA and perhaps try to show that a ‘wrong VRN’ gave rise to the charge, POPLA please note that that would prove my point that this NTK has no ‘facts’ and also fails to describe those parking charges which they contend remain ‘unpaid’ by the driver. So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was.

Then following with #2 The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can try that.