Euro Car Parks NTK - Wigan - POPLA Appeal Advice

Gr1pr

Version 9 , section 22

General principles

22.1 You may use camera technology to remotely manage parking on controlled land as long as you do so overtly, and in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. In particular you must make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.

22.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the

ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.

TheYoungster

I couldn't find it, i read the ANRR section and they have changed the wording around it. i also typed it into the search and nothing came up. I will have another search. 

Rev 9 - 22,1 You may use camera technology to remotely manage

parking on controlled land as long as you do so overtly,

and in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.

In particular you must make sure the data you are collecting

is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.

They seem to have replaced this bit from rev 8

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.

 

TheYoungster

Hi All,
Well the operator has sent their evidence back as to why they have knocked back my appeal. I now have 7 days to respond.

My time in the carpark has now increased from 1hr 10 on the charge to 1hr 11 on the evidence pack. 

I will have a proper read through later and have a read of the newbies section before i reply.

To be honest they seem to have replied to my appeal with nonsense. 

TheYoungster

Is is possible to upload a PDF document where i can rebut their evidence pack line by line or do i have to use the box on the POPLA website? 

TheYoungster

Hi All,
Could you please run your eyes over the below and advise if you think it is sufficient.

This is my response to the ECP Evidence Pack. 

Dear POPLA Assessor

Please find my responses to the Euro Car Park Evidence pack, In rebutting the operators evidence, I will not answer each one individually as many of the bullet pointed ‘evidence’ could have been rolled up into one or two points.

Firstly  I would like to draw your attention to the inconsistency of the operators NTK and Appeal Rejection Form and the Evidence Pack issued.

Both the NTK and Appeal Rejection Letters state  a parking time of 1 hour 10 minutes (this can be found in the operators Evidence Pack). Following my original POPLA appeal  where I quote a 10 minutes grace period and insert the BPA code of practice V9 13.3 quote. The operator has increased the time of stay to 1hour 11 minutes in the Evidence Pack. This amendment to the time would appear to be one of two reasons.

1)        The car park operator has purposely amended the time frame to counter the 10 minute Grace Period, therefore calling into question the credibility the operators intentions.

2)        The person responsible for collating the Evidence Pack on behalf of the operator has not taken the time to read and digest all previous correspondence and has just pulled together generic answers and images with a few alterations to make reference to the keepers information.

I would request the POPLA assessor to take the above points into consideration whilst adjudicating the credibility of Euro Car Parks claim.

Below I have tried to pull together the evidence points from the operator as they are very erratic and not in any real order.

·        Time in Carpark

·        ANPR Reliability

·        Signage

·        Land owners authority

 

Time in carpark

·        Euro carparks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant remained at the site for 1 hour 11 minutes (figure 1)

Figure 1 details photographic evidence in defense of the driver and the times clearly show and entrance of 14:27:21 and an exit of 15:37:31 this is 10 minutes and 10 seconds not 11 minutes. As previously stated in my appeal, the car is photographed at the exit boundary of the carpark trying to join the traffic on a busy ring road in wigan town Centre.  I have already requested further evidence from the operator to demonstrate in real time at what point the image was taken as 10 seconds is not an unreasonable amount of time to join the ring road from the carpark.

 

·        According to BPA code of practice 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before enforcement action is taken. 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.

Can the operator please confirm that this should be BCA code of practice and the version this is taken from as they seem to be a working from a superseded version.

 

·        I can confirm that Euro Car Parks have given the driver of the vehicle the suitable grace period of 10 minutes and was issued a parking charge notice.

The operator has stated ‘Euro car parks have given the driver a grace time of 10 minutes’.

 This is  the operators statement, in this case the NTK should not of been issued as it clearly details the stay at 1hour 10 minutes, this is in line with their own statement above. It is my argument that the 10 seconds are de minimis in this case due to the operator not providing evidence that the image of the car entering and leaving is accurate to the second of when the car entered and exited the car park boundaries.

 

·        Signage is clear drivers must purchase a valid pay & display ticket for the duration of the their stay

The driver did purchase a ticket as detailed in the original appeal and the ticket was submitted as evidence. Time of entrance is recorded at 14.27 and the ticket time is detailed at 14:32 showing that it took the driver 5 minutes to find a parking bay and purchase a ticket, this is not an unreasonable time. Again I go back to the statement from Kevin Reynolds.

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.”

“The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.”

 

·        A ticket matching your registration was purchased for £1.60 this would have entitled your vehicle to park for up to 1 hour according to the clearly displayed tariff.

·        Your vehicle entered at 14:27:21 and evited at 15:37:31, a total stay of 1 hour and 11 minutes.

The operators evidence pack is clearly wrong as the times above does not amount to 1 hour 11 minutes but 1 hour 10 minutes and 10 seconds. The NTK has ‘time in car park’ as 1 hour 10 minutes and the Appeal Rejection letter states 1 hour 10 minutes. This has only changed since I challenged using BCA code of practice V9 (13.3).

 

ANPR Reliability

 

As part of the POPLA appeal it was requested that the car park operator forward calibration and maintenance evidence to back up their case that the ANPR cameras are accurate. This is important to this case as the timeframe is a matter of seconds.

No calibration or maintenance records have been inserted into the evidence pack, only a written statement detailing how a camera works. One paragraph by the operator that stands out is the following (partly quoted from evidence pack section 6 paragraph 22):

·        Often cites under ‘calibration’ there is no requirement under NAAS/NASP or other standards to calibrate an ANPR when used within a parking environment, calibration is usually limited to speed enforcement systems or average speed installations.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 22.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice – V9. I say that Euro Car parks have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. As previously requested, I require that Euro Car Parks  present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Euro Car Parks to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this carpark, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to the contrary.

 

 

Signage

·        The car park is private property and signage on contracts on entrance and within the private  carpark clearly set out the rules and regulations of the car park and tariffs (if applicable). By entering the car park, parking and leaving the vehicle the driver has accepted the ‘contract and therefore if the driver fails to comply with the terms and conditions a parking notice will be correctly issued.

The above statement is then supplemented with images (some outdated) of the signage around Rodney St.Carpark.

 

 

Entrance Sign

Using the operators image of the entrance sign on page 28 of the ECP Evidence pack, this image was taken from within the the carpark entrance whilst stationary to provide the best angle of the sign. The driver when entering Rodney st. carpark will enter from the angle of the cars shown in the operators image, this is a one way system with traffic lights a few yards past the entrance, the sign is elevated so the driver would have to take their eyes off the road to read, whilst also navigating the traffic. The driver only has a split second to read the sign.

As detailed on the operators image from a stationary position using the best angle the only writing you can ‘vaguely’ make out is ‘WELCOME TO RODNEY STREET PARKING FROM £1.00’. This is combined with the usage of blue and red writing on a yellow background that makes the signage near impossible to make out apart from the £1.00 that is in a font at least 3 time bigger than the other writing and bright red.

Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

 

BCA Code of practice. V9 -19.3

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. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport  guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

 

 

Landowners authority

 

·        Figure 4 shows the contract between EPC and the Landowner

Euro Car parks has provided an appendix A from an unknown document in figure 4  of their evidence pack and not the relevant contract. This statement is redacted making it impossible to identify its authenticity therefore making this piece of evidence worthless. Furthermore it does not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practice (BPA:CoP) to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

As ECP are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver. ECP has failed to provide to provide evidence of a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract.

EPC have supplied an appendix of their (alleged) landowner contract, this is not sufficient proof that they have a compliant landowner contract and the legal standing to form contracts and charge drivers. The contract evidence supplied by ECP is worthless, as it cannot be scrutinised for BPA:CoP compliance.

In light of the above, and in addition to these points, I will reiterate my initial request in my POPLA appeal, which EPC have failed to adequately address with their ridiculous evidence.

 

Summary

Not only have Euro Car Parks amended evidence to suit their claim, they have also failed to forward any evidence requested in the original POPLA appeal, instead piecing together a generic evidence pack accompanied with out of date images of the carpark signage. I also requested a contract detailing Land owner authorisation but received an appendix taken from a unknown document that that details ‘British Parking Association Code Of Practice’.

 

 

 

Gr1pr

Given that you need to copy and paste your rebuttal online, it has a new 9999 character limit, whereas your rebuttal is more war and peace, rather than concise, you are probably over the limit 

You cannot introduce any new evidence, but can highlight where they have bolstered your appeal and also highlight their failures, in a concise manner , but not reinventing your previous appeals 

If it was 10 minutes overstay and has ballooned by 1 Extra minute, the BPA CoP states a MINIMUM of 10 minutes, not a maximum 

Frankly its that long I didn't read it, so don't expect an assessor to get the gist either 

The character limit used to be 2000 , which prevented such issues 

I suspect that 80% or 90% should be trimmed and binned 

LDast

You are simply responding to the operators evidence pack. All you need to do is highlight any of your points that they have not responded to or failed to answer correctly. THat's it. You are not resubmitting your POPLA appeal again.

Copy and past whatever you plan on putting in the response box into a word processor and do a character count which must not exceed 10,000 characters. What you showed us above is 13,320 characters long!

TheYoungster

Thanks, and advice taken on board!! 

I have now cut out all the bumf and left my main arguments

Character count just over 3k 

Euro Car Parks evidence pack

PCN Number 88888033931

 

Dear POPLA Assessor

 

Please find my responses to the Euro Car Park Evidence pack, In rebutting the operators evidence,

 

Time in carpark

Both the NTK and Appeal Rejection Letters state a parking time of 1 hour 10 minutes (this can be found in the operators Evidence Pack). Following my original POPLA appeal  where I quote a 10 minutes grace period and insert the BPA code of practice V9 13.3 quote. The operator has increased the time of stay to 1hour 11 minutes, adding an additional minute in the Evidence Pack.

The BPA code of practice V9 13.3 clearly states a minimum of 10 minutes.

Here the operator writes in their own Evidence Pack

I can confirm that Euro Car Parks have given the driver of the vehicle the suitable grace period of 10 minutes and was issued a parking charge notice.

This is clearly untrue or the NTK would have stated 1hour 11 minutes.

ANPR Reliability

As part of the POPLA appeal it was requested that the car park operator forward calibration and maintenance evidence to back up their case that the ANPR cameras are accurate. This is important to this case as the timeframe is a matter of seconds. No calibration or maintenance records have been inserted into the evidence pack, only a written statement detailing how a camera works.

Signage

Using the operators image of the entrance sign on page 28 of the ECP Evidence pack, this image was taken from within the the carpark entrance whilst stationary to provide the best angle of the sign. The driver when entering Rodney st. carpark will enter from the angle of the cars shown in the operators image, this is a one way system with traffic lights a few yards past the entrance, the sign is elevated so the driver would have to take their eyes off the road to read, whilst also navigating the traffic. The driver only has a split second to read the sign.

As detailed on the operators image from a stationary position using the best angle the only writing you can ‘vaguely’ make out is ‘WELCOME TO RODNEY STREET PARKING FROM £1.00’. This is combined with the usage of blue and red writing on a yellow background that makes the signage near impossible to make out apart from the £1.00 that is in a font at least 3 time bigger than the other writing and bright red. The operator has only shown images from different positions in the carpark with the majority not showing any signage, they have not forwarded any images from the drivers parking position

I do not believe the operator has provided sufficient information to rebut my claim that the signage is insufficient.

Landowners authority

 

·        Figure 4 shows the contract between EPC and the Landowner

Euro Car parks has provided an appendix A from an unknown document in figure 4  of their evidence pack and not the relevant contract. This statement is photo of 3 no. pages making it impossible to identify its authenticity therefore making this piece of evidence worthless.  

EPC have supplied an appendix of their (alleged) landowner contract, this is not sufficient proof that they have a compliant landowner contract and the legal standing to form contracts and charge drivers. The contract evidence supplied by ECP is worthless, as it cannot be scrutinised for BPA:CoP compliance.

Coupon-mad

Remove this, which POPLA won't consider:

ANPR Reliability

As part of the POPLA appeal it was requested that the car park operator forward calibration and maintenance evidence to back up their case that the ANPR cameras are accurate. This is important to this case as the timeframe is a matter of seconds. No calibration or maintenance records have been inserted into the evidence pack, only a written statement detailing how a camera works. 

TheYoungster

Cheers Coupon-mad

All submitted, wait for the verdict now.