Appeal to POPLA vs Euro Car Parks

plantperson

Hi,

Sorry for a long post!

I'm trying to appeal a PCN from Euro Car Parks, and am hoping that some of you would be willing to have a read of what I've written and share any tips or feedback.

I know the Newbies thread says the specifics aren't important, but for context I was parked for 3 days in Birmingham and when I came to pay at the end of my stay the machine didn't recognise my registration number, so I paid for three full days and left. I then got a NtK through the post as I had actually been parked for 74 hours and 30ish minutes, so hadn't paid for the full duration of my stay. I appealed this with Euro Car Parks, but they obviously denied my appeal.

My letter so far is below. I can't include the pictures, but one is of the parking tariff sign, the other is my receipt for paying for parking.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 28/08/2024 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Euro Car Parks – was submitted and acknowledged on 16/09/2024 but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 07/10/2024. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds: 
1) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR  

2) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements 

3) Lack of Evidence of the Accuracy of the ANPR images 

4) Lack of signage regarding the failure of payment machines and minor keying error 

 
1) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR 
 
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) states that those using ANPR should have ‘conducted a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) that fully addresses our use of ANPR, and explores any impact on the rights and freedoms of individuals whose personal data are processed.’ I require that Euro Car Parks (ECP) demonstrate that they have a fully up to date DPIA. 
 
Furthermore, the ICO states that there should be ‘clear and prominent signage in place to inform individuals that ANPR is in use, with sufficient detail about who to contact if they have a query.’ While the car park in question does have signage indicating the use of 24hr CCTV, it lacked signage regarding the use of ANPR and its intended usage.  

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Feb, 2024) (section 30) states, with regards to ANPR, parking operators ‘must make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.’ I require ECP to provide evidence that the data is held securely. 
 
2) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements 

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) (2012) (Schedule 4, paragraph 9) specifies that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must specify the ‘the period of parking to which the notice relates’. ECP state on the NtK the time the vehicle entered the car park, and the time exited, but does not specify the ‘period of parking’ as required. Due to the nature of the ANPR system only capturing the entry and exit times in place of the PoFA requirement it can not be definitively said that the car was parked for the full duration of this time. It is not for ECP to make this substitution of terminology. 

3) Lack of Evidence of the Accuracy of the ANPR images 

The BPA Code of Practice (Feb, 2024) (section 30.3) states parking operators ‘must ensure that the equipment and systems used to capture photographic evidence in respect of controlled land are fit for purpose, maintained to a good standard in accordance with the manufacturers’ operating requirements and those of the British Parking Association and are synchronised so that they record accurately photographic evidence of whether a parking charge is due.’  
 
I require ECP to provide robust evidence that the ANPR cameras used on the site are indeed fit for purpose, maintained to a good standard and synchronised.  

Furthermore, the BPA Code of Practice (Feb, 2024) (section 21.5) specifies ‘Photographic evidence must not be used by you 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 applied at the point the picture was taken;  

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 time-stamp and the risk of keying errors.’ 

I require ECP to submit evidence that the images they have provided have been subject to the manual quality control checks outlined above. While the images supplied by ECP on the NtK do show the vehicle’s VRM and a bear a time and date stamp, without evidence that the images have been subject to manual quality control, and without evidence that the ANPR cameras are in good working order there is no evidence that these images are accurate. 

 4) Lack of signage regarding the failure of payment machines and minor keying errors 

The updated BPA Code of Practice (June, 2024) (section 6.1.2) states ‘Where payment machines are installed within the controlled land, the following information must be displayed on, or near (i.e. adjacent to), the payment machine: 

a) instructions for making the payment of the tariff; 

b) contact details of the organisation responsible for responding to: 

 1) queries about making payment; 

 2) queries about the use of on-site payment machinery; and 

 3) reports of malfunctioning pay machine equipment. 

c) the consequences of a machine being unavailable, i.e. whether alternative payment methods are available, the location of alternative machines and whether inability to pay due to machine failure absolves the driver from making payment or whether inability to pay means the driver is not permitted to park and is required to leave within the appropriate consideration period; 

d) the level of the parking charge in the largest font used to display the tariff’ 

ECP have themselves provided the following photograph of the information provided at their payment machines (Fig. 1). While this specific guidance has not yet come into force, the signage does not include all of the relevant information as set out by the BPA code of Practice (June, 2024), such as contact details for the responsible organisation if the machine malfunctions or consequences of the machine being unavailable.  

In this case, the payment machine was unable to find the vehicle when the registration was inputted and therefore was unable to give an accurate total of the tariff due. Despite this, the driver made an attempt to pay for the parking tariff due, using approximate time of arrival as there was no other information to guide the driver’s course of action. Fig 2 shows the receipt for this payment.  

The keeper acknowledges that the payment machine’s inability to recognise the registration number may be in part due to a minor keying error – for example the inclusion or lack of inclusion of a space between characters. However the BPA Code of Practice (Feb, 2024) (section 17.4) states ‘minor errors where up to one character has been entered incorrectly, or where the registration has been entered in the wrong order. If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.’ 

As demonstrated above the driver made an honest attempt to pay the tariff due, but due to either a failure of ECP’s own machine or a minor keying error did not have an accurate account of the tariff due. For this alone the appeal against this Parking Charge Notice should be upheld. Furthermore, if the images had been subject to manual quality control, as discussed previously, this Parking Charge Notice might never have been issued. 

As discussed in this letter, ECP has breached not only the BPA Code of Practice (Feb, 2024) but also the guidance set out by the ICO in relation to ANPR and the requirements of PoFA (2012), as such it can not be concluded that the Parking Charge Notice was issued appropriately. 
 
Thank you for considering this appeal.

LDast

Wait for the POPLA rejection and then sit out the useless DRA letters which you ignore and we don't need to know about. When you receive the inevitable Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal, go back to the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread where you use the template response to the LoC.

After ou report DCB Legal to HMRC and you receive the N1SDT claim form from the CNBC, follow the advice in that same post and the template defence thread. This will eventually be discontinued early next year.

Coupon-mad

I would not even try POPLA.

I skim-read your post and don't see grounds POPLA will like, UNLESS the sign had the £100 hidden in small text.

Or unless the NTK was non-POFA which is for you to check against the NTK pictures thread.