UKCPM PCN - Dropping Disabled person off to attend Blue Badge assessment

Coupon-mad

dudidudidudi said

Background to receiving the PCN:
Registered keeper (my partner) was being driven in their car to attend a Blue Badge assessment at a council office located in a library over 20 miles from where we live. Their mobility is severely restricted, hence the need to request a Blue Badge for the first time, resulting in the request to attend a Blue Badge assessment.

The driver of the vehicle drove into the no-through road where the library entrance is located. The driver did not park, they stopped by the side of the road to allow my Partner to alight the vehicle, which is allowed in the Highway Code. My Partner immediately went into the library and the driver immediately turned the vehicle round and drove the car back onto the main road (one way system) and to the nearest public car park, about a 6-7 minute drive (due to one way systems). The public car park is situated at least 5 minute walk for an abled body person, probably 15-20 minutes walk for my partner, and was too far for her to walk.

Following the Blue Badge assessment, approx. 50 mins after my Partner alighted, my Partner telephoned the driver on their mobile. The driver returned to the same place where they dropped my Partner off. 

CPM are claiming that the car was 'Parked' at the location for 54 minutes. This is impossible as the car was being driven on the public highway or was parked in a public car park for the duration of their alleged parking violation.

The CPM signage mentions Parking is only permitted for permit holders. It does not state that there is no stopping, see attached. My understanding is that there is a legal difference between, stopping to allow a disabled passenger to alight or board a vehicle and parking. Something that CPM doesn't recognise that stopping is legitimate.

We're going to fight this rogue PCN.

But would appreciate advice on what to do and when.

P.S.
My Partner was accepted for a Blue Badge, and it arrived today. 

kryten3000 said:

ANPR failure - no manual check of the images leading to a "double dip".

Breach of KADOE contract with DVLA and Data Protection Act 2018 for obtaining keeper details without "reasonable cause".

Yep do the above then take it to the IAS, which is a farce but it's a double dip case. I know what the IAS will say but let's see how their non-impartial hired guns twist the law on this one to favour the operator.

Does the driver have Google Location running so they can 'prove' the timeline? No worries if not.

dudidudidudi

I have taken your advice and appealed to IAS, and have had IAS/CPM response.

CPM response to IAS contains no additional evidence to what they supplied in the original PCN. i.e. Double Dip photos, where they claim that the vehicle was parked for 54 minutes continuously. 

CPM response to point 4 - Payment at nearby Car Park is comical.

"We acknowledge your receipt from Back Lane Car Park. However, the fact that the vehicle was parked elsewhere does not override the recorded time during which it was observed on private land under CPM's control. If the vehicle exited and re-entered Roche Close as you claim, we would have expected additional ANPR timestamps to reflect this."

They acknowledge as fact, that the vehicle was parked elsewhere, but insist that their APNR system is not at fault.

Can someone please advise what I should do next. IAS say I must respond by 13/05/2025.

My thanks in anticipation.

My Appeal

I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (on behalf of ???? ??????, having been given written/signed authority to act as a Third Party on their behalf (copy attached), on the following grounds,

1. The owner/keeper (???? ??????) was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. The owner was a passenger being driven to a Blue Badge Assessment at Rochford Library. There is no legal requirement for the owner to identify the driver at the time of the alleged incident and the owner will not be doing so.
2. CPM have failed to comply with Para 9(2)(e) of the POFA - no invitation to the keeper to pay and use of "should provide" driver's details instead of an invitation. Copy of PCN attached.
3. The vehicle was not parked in Roche Close at any time during the alleged timeframe. The vehicle was stopped for a few moments to allow the owner (as a passenger) to ‘alight' the vehicle. In Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number B9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence. 
4. Once the owner alighted, the vehicle was immediately driven to the nearest public Car Park, Back Lane Car Park, Rochford, Essex (approx. 7 minute drive from Roche Close due to Rochford one way systems), where the appropriate parking fees were paid (via. PayByPhone Parking App.) for more than the duration (54 minutes) of the alleged parking period. Copy of PayByPhone receipt is attached, confirming Date/Time of parking period and Registration Number of the vehicle CPM claim was parked at Roche Close for 54 minutes.
5. Once the owners Blue Badge Assessment was completed, the owner telephoned the driver and the driver and the vehicle returned to Roche Close and stopped for a few moments to allow the owner to board the vehicle. The vehicle was not parked (for same reason as 4. above). The vehicle then immediately left Roche Close.
6. On each occasion the driver declined any offer of parking and left within the consideration period.
7. ANPR failure - no manual check by CPM of the images leading to a "double dip". CPM have breached the PPSCoP because CPM are obliged to carry out a manual quality control check before requesting owners DVLA data. CPM obviously didn't do this manual check. The only evidence that CPM have submitted in the PCN, are two images of the alleged vehicle that they claim were taken by ANPR 54 minutes apart. If the ANPR was operating correctly, it will have recorded additional images of the owners vehicle exiting the area the first time and entering the area the second time. CPM have ignored these orphan images and falsely claimed that the vehicle was parked for 54 minutes. Because CPM didn't perform the required manual quality control checks, CPM have requested the owner DVLA data unlawfully. I will make a formal complaint to the DVLA about this and request that CPM as an operator be sanctioned.
8. Breach of KADOE contract with DVLA and Data Protection Act 2018 for obtaining keeper details without "reasonable cause".

I look forward to you confirming this appeal is successful.

CPM Response to Appeal

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 06/05/2025 11:45:05.

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 21/03/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 18/03/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the car park. 



The vehicle was at the car park for 54 minutes, evidence of this can be seen in the 'PCN Information'. 



The appellant has parked within the car park and did not register their vehicle. 



Signage clearly states, “ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT. VEHICLES HOLDING A VALID E-PERMIT FOR AN ALLOCATED BAY OR AREA MUST PARK WITHIN THE CORRESPONDING BAY OR AREA". 


Our records indicate that vehicle registration ??????? was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of contravention. This can be seen in the 'PCN INFO'. 



The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area. 

Thank you for your appeal regarding the above Parking Charge Notice issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd (CPM). We have carefully reviewed the points you raised, along with the documentation provided.

Below is our response to the issues set out in your correspondence:

1. Driver Identification

While you have chosen not to identify the driver, we note your statement that you were a passenger. In the absence of driver details, CPM may pursue the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, provided the relevant conditions under Schedule 4 are met.

2. Alleged Non-Compliance with POFA (Para 9(2)(e))

We have reviewed the content of the Parking Charge Notice and confirm that it includes a notice to the keeper inviting payment and requesting details of the driver. The language used complies with the requirements under POFA 2012, Schedule 4. While the specific wording may vary slightly, it maintains the intent and legal sufficiency required under the statute.

3 & 5. Vehicle Was Stopped, Not Parked (Jopson v Homeguard)

We acknowledge your reference to Jopson v Homeguard (2016). However, while that judgment does clarify the legal distinction between stopping and parking for the purposes of loading/unloading or allowing passengers to alight, its application is context-dependent. In this case, CPM maintains that the evidence indicates a continuous presence of the vehicle on private land over an extended period (54 minutes), which exceeds what would be considered a brief stop or reasonable time for alighting.

The duration suggests the vehicle was stationary for longer than required to allow a passenger to enter or exit, and therefore constitutes "parking" under the terms and conditions clearly displayed on signage at Roche Close.

4. Payment at Nearby Car Park

We acknowledge your receipt from Back Lane Car Park. However, the fact that the vehicle was parked elsewhere does not override the recorded time during which it was observed on private land under CPM's control. If the vehicle exited and re-entered Roche Close as you claim, we would have expected additional ANPR timestamps to reflect this.

6. Consideration Period and Offer of Parking

CPM applies a reasonable grace period in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. However, the evidence provided by our system indicates that the vehicle was present within the premises for significantly longer than the usual consideration period. Therefore, the terms and conditions of parking applied once the vehicle remained stationary beyond this timeframe.

7. ANPR Quality Control & "Double Dip" Allegation

You have raised a concern regarding potential ANPR system error or “double dipping.” We have reviewed the system logs for the date in question and found no evidence of additional entry or exit records during the timeframe in question. While rare, ANPR discrepancies may occur; however, in this instance, the system recorded a single entry and exit with a 54-minute gap between them. This is consistent with a continuous presence and not two separate visits.

As a BPA member, CPM performs regular checks on ANPR equipment and follows quality assurance protocols. There is no evidence to suggest a failure to perform a manual check or that DVLA data was requested unlawfully.

8. KADOE Contract & Data Protection Allegations

We take data protection and compliance with our KADOE contract seriously. Our request to DVLA was made on the basis of a Parking Charge Notice issued in line with the contractual terms on display. We are satisfied that “reasonable cause” existed under the relevant legislation. Should you wish to make a formal complaint to the DVLA or the Information Commissioner's Office, you are fully entitled to do so.



By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.

Coupon-mad

Just respond laughing at this and only this absurdity, and point out that the operator has acknowledged as fact, that the vehicle was parked elsewhere in between and they've provided no ANPR continuous logs so there is no evidence whatsoever from their side about the supposed lack of 'ANPR timestamps' which is clearly codswallop:

CPM response to point 4 - Payment at nearby Car Park is comical.
"We acknowledge your receipt from Back Lane Car Park. However, the fact that the vehicle was parked elsewhere does not override the recorded time during which it was observed on private land under CPM's control. If the vehicle exited and re-entered Roche Close as you claim, we would have expected additional ANPR timestamps to reflect this."

      

"the fact that the vehicle was parked elsewhere does not override the recorded time during which it was observed on private land under CPM's control".

      

Deserves to be framed!

What they don't know is that I've used this case as a double dip example. I sent it to the Government as proof of rogue practice...

...keep digging that hole, UKCPM!

Coupon-mad

I will LOVE IT if the end of the appeal sees the IAS uphold the charge for their AOS member!

kryten3000

dudidudidudi said:

I have taken your advice and appealed to IAS, and have had IAS/CPM response.

CPM response to point 4 - Payment at nearby Car Park is comical.

"We acknowledge your receipt from Back Lane Car Park. However, the fact that the vehicle was parked elsewhere does not override the recorded time during which it was observed on private land under CPM's control. If the vehicle exited and re-entered Roche Close as you claim, we would have expected additional ANPR timestamps to reflect this."

They acknowledge as fact, that the vehicle was parked elsewhere, but insist that their APNR system is not at fault.

So they are suggesting the car was parked in 2 places at the same time?  Ask them how that is possible without time travel.

Johnersh

Agree with much of what others have said.

Just a reminder that it is for them to prove their case on balance of probabilities - that may include disclosure of video, a complete log etc. If D has already cast doubt as to the reliability of their data, then C has the uphill battle here. Merely saying "we use ANPR" doesn't cut it.

Even BPA guidance for ANPR operation flags the possibility of double dips and advises care to check for such instances. It's not like it's unheard of.


If the vehicle exited and re-entered Roche Close as you claim, we would have expected additional ANPR timestamps to reflect this."
Which begs the questions:
1. Have you checked the camera placement?
2. When was the system last maintained?
3. Is it reliable for personal/non-standard numberplates (if applicable)
4. Has a manual review of stored images been undertaken to exclude any automated misreading?