First Parking LLP - how litigious/aggressive?

1505grandad

" A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph."

Even confirmed in the new joint BPA/IPC CoP:-

"7.3. Use of photographic evidence
Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:
a) at least one of the images captured includes a clear record of the vehicle’s VRM to which the parking charge is deemed to apply;
b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp;
c) the image(s) show, where appropriate, the pay and display tariff receipt as displayed or not being visible; and
d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors"

No doubt C-m has noticed this in the joint CoP:-

"NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary"

Coupon-mad

Actually, I haven't read it (at all, not a word) because it's not worth the time of day and my life as a retired lady is busy & fun!

I don't need to read that rubbish just yet. Since Steve Clark left, IMHO the BPA has earnestly joined the race to the bottom and I no longer speak to anyone there.

They really are not worth my time. By your own actions be judged, BPA and IPC.

Nor is he worth my time any more, because Steve C joined DCB Group and I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than talk to them.

I will read it.  In the end.  And I will speak to the DLUHC to ensure none of it creeps in.

artyboy

Well, POPLA appeal sent... came in at a mere 14 pages, but I was in a bit of a rush  Bit annoying as the last day the code would be valid is the day I'm back from holiday, I know you generally get an extra day, but wanted to get it sorted beforehand, just to be sure...

I'll update again once I've got a response...

artyboy

Is there a big backlog at POPLA right now? Immediately after putting in my appeal, I got a confirmation email suggesting 2-4 weeks for a decision, but it's been over 9 weeks now. and is still showing as 'in progress' on the website.

The tension is killing me 

Coupon-mad

Did you never get sent an email telling you that the PPC had put in an evidence pack/file?

If not, then this will just be pending an assessor confirming to you that the PPC did not contest it.  When contested, you get to see and comment on their evidence and you'd have had that email in August if they had.

artyboy

Coupon-mad said:

Did you never get sent an email telling you that the PPC had put in an evidence pack/file?

If not, then this will just be pending an assessor confirming to you that the PPC did not contest it.  When contested, you get to see and comment on their evidence and you'd have had that email in August if they had.

Apologies, I missed that step, they uploaded their 'evidence' within 2 days of submission. It was a bunch of generic guff showing perfect digital versions of their signs, and not addressing any of my appeal points, so I rebutted it all same day. The mail from POPLA estimating 2-4 weeks then arrived. So still about 9 weeks ago...

Coupon-mad

Wait it out and if you lose you won't be paying.

artyboy

And lo and behold - "Your appeal was successful" 

I've pasted the POPLA adjudicator summary below but basically the appeal was made on 5 points:

1) PCN not PoFA compliant (no specific invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge as an alternative to naming the driver)
2) PCN not compliant with BPA CoP (no timestamp embedded in photos)
3) No proof of parking (only photos of car in motion at entry/exit of site)
4) No proof of which car park on the site the car may have been parked in (all had different signage)
5) Inadequate signage (using Coupon Mad's excellent template appeal point)

The appeal was won on a combination of points 3 and 4, with the added bonus that the site plan submitted by First Parking did not even have the name of the road marked on it that was referenced in their PCN.

These were always (IMHO) the strongest points - I would have rather liked the adjudicator to have commented on 1 and 2 but she didn't. Specifically, FP's evidence pack had larger photos of the car, and it was just possible to make out a timestamp within them - something that wasn't possible on the smaller PCN pics. So would that count as technically being compliant with the BPA's CoP, or does the PCN timestamp have to be big enough to be read clearly?

Ditto the PoFA point - my own view is that the lack of an invitation for the keeper to pay just before inviting them to name the driver was a bit weak - that 'invitation' is clear in the broader PCN wording, and PoFA doesn't set out that the PCN components have to follow a specific order.

Anyway, a good result, and Little Miss Arty has learnt a lesson or two that she wouldn't have got from any university library textbook...


POPLA decision text:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for reason ‘not paying for the full duration of stay or by not registering your vehicle.’

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They say they were the registered keeper but not the driver and they will not be advising who was driving as such the operator cannot make assumptions. • They say the PCN does not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in section 21.5a. they say the notice contains two images of the registration plate and two of the vehicle and the date and time stamp has been inserted. They say these images cannot support a contractual breach and they ask for evidence of the date and time stamp at and images of the vehicle parked at the location and not just entering and exiting. They mention a previous decision reached by another POPLA assessor. • There is no proof of parking as the images show the vehicle in motion. They provide the campus site plan and believes the red dot shown is where the cameras are placed and within the campus there are 10 separate car parks. • There is no proof of any breach of contractual term. They say each car park at the campus contains different signs and terms and they have included images of the differing signs. They say the operator has not proved which car park they believe the car was parked in. • They say the signs are not clear or legible from all spaces and the entrance sign is minimal, deficient and positioned on the opposite side of the road and they provided an image to confirm this. They raise the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in section 18. • They mention the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the requirement to give adequate notice of the charge. The appellant raises the court case heard between Beavis v Parking Eye held at the supreme court and discuss the differences with the signs in this case as compared to the appeal in question. • They mention the decisions of other POPLA assessors in relation to signs. After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided photos of the site and signs as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove that the PCN was issued correctly. In this instance the operator is issuing a PCN as the vehicle parked without payment or registering. The appellant challenges the fact there is no proof of parking as the images show the vehicle in motion. They provide the campus site plan and believes the red dot shown is where the cameras are placed and within the campus there are 10 separate car parks. There is no proof of any breach of contractual term. They say each car park at the campus contains different signs and terms and they have included images of the differing signs. They say the operator has not proved which car park they believe the car was parked in. Having looked at the site maps provided I can see there is 2 locations College Lane and De-Havilland. The operator’s PCN states the vehicle was captured entering and exiting Innovation Road, yet having reviewed the site map cannot see Innovation Road upon it. Therefore, I am unable to determine which of the many car parks without evidence that this vehicle was parked in on the date of the event and what terms and conditions the appellant was expected to comply with when parking. The operator has not provided an adequate rebuttal to confirm the location parked or show what signs were displayed in situ in that area. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. Due to the above, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Coupon-mad

Very well done!  Great stuff from an Assessor who we've seen churn out some appalling decisions in the past.

Please post that decision and a link to this thread in POPLA DECISIONS and state at the top of your post which car park and which PPC, for context.

artyboy

No problem, done!