Parking charge after 'failure to obtain a permit'

quitetheheadache1

Hello all and thank you in advance

As the keeper of a car I recently received a parking charge from Civil Enforcement (a BPA member) after 'failure to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms.' The parking charge letter includes the time stamp of arrival and departure along with photos of the car entering and exiting. The car was parked at the Berrycroft Community Health Centre who have declined to withdraw the charge when I reached out to them. 

My concern is that when I entered the building, I entered the car registration details on the system as requested. No further action seemed to be required and there was no print out or other ticket I could hang onto. However, Berrycroft claim that only Civil Enforcement can look into whether the car was actually registered. I have also submitted 'an appeal' to CE using text helpfully provided by this Forum, but if they do not drop the charge I am worried they will just say there is no evidence that I did register the car. I still have no idea of the actual terms of the car park beyond registering the car as requested by the machines when you enter the building. Photos attached of the parking lot signage. 

I planned to take it to POPLA if CE does not drop it, but how do you think POPLA will react to the assymetry of information if CE just say 'the car was not registered' and I cannot directly evidence that it was (even though I did register it)?

DE_612183

When you appeal you can ask them to check for minor and major keying errors - could you have "tapped" a wrong digit?

I believe you can ask for the log files of a particular day to see if there is a mis-key - but they should do this anyway ( they are probably too lazy to do so in truth ).

fisherjim

I don't know what you are worrying about, it's just an invoice from chancers.

The possibility is that you made an error inputting your VRN for which the idiots should cancel the charge.

The sign says that new parking terms apply, how long have they been in force the Muppets are also supposed to allow up to four months settling in period.

D_P_Dance

It does not matter how Popla  reacts, they are a creature of the parking industry, all that matter is what a judge would say, and, IMO, he would side with you if they were daft enough to take this to court.

Fruitcake

Complain again to the head of the health centre. Point out that the vehicle was registered as required. If the unregulated private parking company that they have employed says there is no record of this, it is an indication of a system failure.

The technology exists to prevent an incorrect VRM being entered, therefore a failure of the PPC's equipment is the most likely reason for the vehicle not being registered.

Also complain to your MP. They are the only ones who can get this unregulated industry referred to as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers by MPs across all parties in open debate brought under control.

quitetheheadache1

Thank you everyone - this is all good advice as well as being helpful for holding my nerve !

Coupon-mad

quitetheheadache1 said:

Thank you everyone - this is all good advice as well as being helpful for holding my nerve !

Yep.  You will NEVER be paying this.

Send your surgery this and tell them they are at the start of the same nightmare that took Yarm Medical Practice 3 years before the penny finally dropped with the Doctors that CEL are ruining the mental health of their patients:

https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?id=100063617558246&story_fbid=812074820923096

Tell them to ring & have a chat with Yarm and get themselves out of this wholly inappropriate Contract sharpish before a patient somewhere commits suicide over it.

This is that serious.

quitetheheadache1

Thanks all. As suspected, my appeal was unsuccessful. See below the original PCN and appeal response from Civil Enforcement (including the photo they shared), followed by a draft to POPLA - I would greatly appreciate any review! There is a quote (copied from another POPLA appeal shared on this forum) from 2018, which I wondered if it was still relevant?

POPLA Ref XXXXXXXXX
Civil Enforcement Parking Charge Notice no XXXXXXXX

A notice to keeper was issued on XXXXXXXX and received by me, the registered keeper of XXXXXXX for an alleged contravention of ‘Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage’ at the car park at XXX on XXXXXX. My appeal to the operator, Civil Enforcement Ltd, was rejected by letter dated XXXXX.

I contend that as I, as the keeper at the time of notice, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1.       Keying Error

One of the occupants of the car was a legitimate patient of the doctor surgery. Another occupant of the car purchased coffee etc. from the café inside the doctor surgery while waiting, with the receipt shown below to further prove legitimate use of the parking area. BPA code of practice 2020 (section 17.4, 19 & 20) supports the keeper of the vehicle being a legitimate user of the car park, hence this is an unjustified charge. 

***ATTACH RECEIPT***

As importantly, the occupants of the car entered the registration details of the vehicle immediately upon entering the doctor’s surgery. The service made no provision for the printing of a ticket to display, or a receipt so that the details could be checked in a tangible format at the time of registration. Furthermore, the registration channel did not indicate any failure and as such the occupants of the car believed the necessary process had been followed.  The arrival of the PCN was the first indication to any of the occupants of the car had that something had gone wrong.

There are two possible conclusions that can be drawn: (1) a keying error occurred or (2) a system failure occurred.

Section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice covers the steps a parking operator should take when a keying error occurs. If there has been a minor keying error, the parking operator is expected to have identified this before issuing a Parking Charge Notice. If they failed to do this, they are expected to cancel the Parking Charge Notice when the motorist appeals. Civil Enforcement did not provide any evidence in their response to the submitted appeal that any steps had been taken to confirm whether a minor or major keying error occurred. If a minor keying error was found the PCN should rightly have been cancelled. If a major keying error was found upon appeal of the PCN, it would be proportionate to seek to recover the charges of issuing the PCN from the keeper of the vehicle. However, Civil Enforcement did not provide any evidence that it had reviewed the vehicle logs from the day in question to identify either type of keying error.

It is also plausible that a system failure occurred. According to BPA code of practice 2020 (17 & 22) car park operators and service providers have a responsibility to ensure that car park machines are in working order and that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges. This failure of the registration service is not the responsibility of the occupants of the car as all reasonable steps to register the car were followed. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the occupants of the car to assume any more obligations for ensuring proper operation of the electronic car registration system. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2002] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with the contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. As all reasonable steps to register the vehicle were taken upon entry to the doctor surgery, the keeper of the vehicle should not be penalised.

1. The ANPR System is not accurate or reliable

Civil Enforcement Ltd only claims “ the vehicle entered at [XX:XX:23] and departed at [XX:XX:15]. “of the same date. (XX/XX/20XX)

I ask POPLA to please consider that the BPA does not audit the ANPR cameras in use by private operators. The BPA has no way to ensure that systems in use by operators are in good working order or collect accurate data. Research done independently has not found the technology to be ‘generally accurate’ or proportionate, nor reliable. It is banned for use in council operated car parks largely for this reason.

There is precedence of a POPLA assessor mistakenly believing ANPR systems are properly audited by the BPA and thus wrongly assuming infallibility. I have quoted this below for reference. I further request that POPLA assessors please not assume ANPR cameras work and not expect patients/consumers to be beholden to proving the impossible in regards to the working over such systems in which they have no control. Especially when independent and public information is available describing the inherent failings of these systems is plentiful. 

“Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says: "You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said: "In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate" You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us. This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.”

POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments “may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says:

“You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.'' Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.'

This is important because it makes clear the independent operators are required to audit these systems themselves and there is no concise indication of regulation as to when and how this is to be achieved.

Paragraph 21.3 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 Civil Enforcement Ltd to provide records detailing the location of the cameras used in this instance, along with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, maintained and calibrated properly to ensure accuracy of the ANPR images. ANPR systems are supposed to be synchronized to ensure the proper date and time is stamped on the images. No timestamp was on the supplied images which leads to my next submitted case point.

1. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

*I may need to remove this as there is some information about ANPR noted on the signs, namely pointing towards reviewing the ‘data protection information’ at the entrance to the car park…

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Civil Enforcement Ltd signs do not comply with these requirements because the car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA Codes of Practice and Consumer law.

As an additional point, I can find no evidence of any planning permission supplied for pole mounted ANPR systems at this site. Planning applications are a matter of public record and are available online. An easy search of the XXXXX County website planning section confirms no planning permission for ANPR systems has been issued. 

XXX LINK TO COUNCIL SITE XXX

It is possible the ANPR systems on this site are not pole mounted and thus do not require such planning permission. If this is so, then the camera system must be wall mounted which puts them out of sight of drivers and likely not noticeable by pedestrians either. I submit the ANPR system to be purposefully surreptitious at this location with a view to extort money from individuals in direct affront to consumer law.

Further, UK government guidance on advertisement signage requires:

“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under. It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”

This shows that Civil Enforcement Ltd is/has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

I request Civil Enforcement Ltd provides evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to any pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (XXXXXXX).

1. 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 including exemptions -such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) 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 small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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:

1)       The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

2)       Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

3)       Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

4)       Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

5)       The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Coupon-mad

Give it a go but it will be unlikely to succeed (not that POPLA matters). But escalating the complaint as I suggested is how to handle this. Get your MP to complain for you.

quitetheheadache1

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I will try that too. Is there anything you think I could add (or remove) to make the appeal more likely to succeed? It would be great to be done with it

Coupon-mad

Looks to have most things for a POPLA Appeal.  Did you include a damning photo or two of the supposed t&cs sign & argue that the £100 is in small print & not prominent like in Beavis?