UKPC - Grace Period Query

SingleQuestionAccount6132 · 6 September at 6:55PM

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. Awitness 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 14 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

BPA’s Code of Practice Clause 14.1:

“Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

h) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

i) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.”

The Signs are not transparent in warning drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

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.

BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 7 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. Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because this 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 CoP and Consumer law.

The UKPC’s sign in the [location] car park (see Figure 5) states:

“Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and Warden Patrol Services are in operation for the purposes of Car Park Management and enforcement, Data Reporting and analysing consumer behaviour and crime prevention.

For these purposes your personal data including vehicle registrations and your movements within the car park site may be processed by UK Parking Control Ltd to enable performance of the parking contract and/or to protect legitimate interests as follows:

Provide to Police or security organisations in order to prevent or detect criminal offences

We may also store data about your vehicle with organisations that analyse consumer, drive and vehicle behaviour in this car park.”

The wording on the sign does not explicitly tell drivers that ANPR images will be used to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). Instead, it hides this crucial fact behind vague terms such as “management” and “enforcement.”

Under the BPA Code of Practice (Section 7), signage must clearly convey the specific uses of ANPR cameras so that motorists understand what data is being collected and for what purpose. If the real commercial outcome of “enforcement” is the issuing of PCNs (which is UKPC’s primary enforcement activity), then the signs should state this plainly. The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on UKPC’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states (see Figure 5):

“This land is private property and parking control is managed by UK Parking Control Ltd. Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 is paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle’s driver.”

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

(1) A Trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

And Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security or crime) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator ‘fails to identify its commercial intent’:

[link to gov legislation]

Misleading omissions: 6. – (1) “A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2) –

(a) The commercial practice omits material information,

(b) The commercial practice hides material information,

(c) The commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) The commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.”

It is far from ‘apparent’ that the use of ANPR cameras will be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. UKPC’s sign is to vague as the word “enforcement” could be misinterpreted by their further uses of “Crime” and “Police and security organisations”. This is not transparent enough to be covered under the Consumer Rights Act. By failing to do so, the operator has:

· Misrepresented the purpose of data collection, making the notice non-compliant with BPA rules.

· Breached transparency requirements under UK GDPR, which require that personal data is processed in a clear and specific way that data subjects (drivers) can understand.

· Denied drivers informed consent about the contractual consequences of entering the site, since it is not made clear that ANPR cameras are being used to issue parking charge notices.

Therefore, the signage is misleading and fails both under the BPA Code of Practice and data protection law, making any Parking Charge Notice issued on the basis of this evidence invalid.

No Planning Permission from [city] Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search in [city]’s planning databases, which go back to 2009, it does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for [location], [postcode], nor does it show any advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2.

UK government guidance on advertisement requirements:

“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 a criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”

Calculations of the sign on site are 0.56m2. This is above what is allowed by law without consent. Therefore, this clearly proves UKPC 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 UKPC Ltd provides evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding , 0.3m2 prior to the date to which this appeal relates (14/08/2025)

SingleQuestionAccount6132 · 6 September at 6:58PM

The reason the images are showing as "AI generated content is incorrect" is becuase im using Word to write this and it automatically generated Alt text for the images that for some reason got copied over with the text. Nothing in the document is AI generated. Just word being word.

Coupon-mad · 6 September at 10:36PM

Remove 2, 7 and 11 which are old and don't work at POPLA. Make it easy for the Assessor to see the wood for the trees.

1505grandad · 7 September at 8:45AM

Opening post states (amended):-

"However, my dashcam shows xxxxx(driver) being fully parked at 23:52 and returning to my vehicle at 00:34, and xxxxxx(driver) stayed with the car there after driving around the business park with xxxx(their) mates."

Why are you using/quoting Byelaws? - for instance:-

"In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (18.1) clearly states that:

“Where byelaws apply in respect of parking on controlled land the parking operator must make clear whether they are enforcing the byelaw, through the appropriate legal procedure for their enforcement, or pursuing a complementary contractual obligation.”

Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and UKPC. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated."

Anyway in the latest (joint) single CoP you should be using/quoting para 18.1 is for "Compliance"

SingleQuestionAccount6132 · 7 September at 9:16AM

1505grandad said:
Anyway in the latest (joint) single CoP you should be using/quoting para 18.1 is for "Compliance"

This is not a part of the POPLA appeal. This was simply opening the thread up with a little context. The first section of the appeal is titled "The Alleged Breach is NOT Covered by the Signage, so no Contract was Broken"

I'm only able to find the "The private parking sector single Code of Practice" BPC CoP from Feb 2025. Though it does have a section 18. I'm not sure that's relevant to this. It's for the operators to "Monitoring Compliance with the Code" on themselves.

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 2, 7 and 11 which are old and don't work at POPLA. Make it easy for the Assessor to see the wood for the trees.

Done. Do you think it needed other changes, or was it ok like that?

Coupon-mad · 7 September at 1:59PM

I think it is far too long and @1505grandad is making a good point. His quotes were pointing out this is a business park not byelaws land!

You've copied too much of a very (excessively) wordy POPLA appeal. Make it much more specific to your case then show us a draft again, that is half as long.

SingleQuestionAccount6132 · 8 September at 9:48PM

Coupon-mad said:

I think it is far too long and @1505grandad is making a good point. His quotes were pointing out this is a business park not byelaws land!

You've copied too much of a very (excessively) wordy POPLA appeal. Make it much more specific to your case then show us a draft again, that is half as long.

Ah, I've misunderstood what he was saying, thank you for clarifying. Apologies @1505grandad

I've massively reduced the "No entrance sign" section, and a couple of other sections, and the appeal has gone from 26 to 17 pages. I'm not sure what else to really trim. I'll post the updated version below.

SingleQuestionAccount6132 · 8 September at 9:52PM

Contradiction between PCN allegation vs signage wording

The alleged breach in the Notice to Keeper is stated as:

“The vehicle was present on site during the restricted no parking period.”

However, the signage at the location does not prohibit being present on site. The wording is “No Unauthorised Parking” with one of the conditions being “No parking between 00:30 and 05:30”. (See Figure 1.)

This is a clear distinction:

· The signs only prohibit unauthorised parking.

· They do NOT prohibit vehicles from being present, driving through, or otherwise being on site.

· UKPC’s own evidence does not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked at the restricted time, only that it was on site via ANPR arrival and departure times.

Further, BPA Code of Practice, Clause 3.1.3(J) states:

“Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must be clear, unambiguous and not use the words “penalty” or “fine”, unless there is a statutory requirement to do so;”

The signs do not state that the vehicle cannot be present on site during restricted parking times only that they cannot be “parked during restricted times”. Since the alleged breach does not match the terms displayed on site, a contract was never breached as it was never offered in the terms.

[IMAGE]

Figure 1: Shows the only sign on site during the day with all terms and conditions.

Figure 1 clearly shows the signs do not meet the BPA Code of Practice, as in addition to the mismatch of alleged breach vs signage, the sign also fails to comply with BPA Code of Practice, Section 3.2, which requires:

“Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.”

The signage at this sign fails to meet this standard. While the parking charge is mentioned, it is buried within a block of small, non-bold text in the middle of the sign. It is not displayed in a font size or style comparable to the main body of text (“NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING”), which dominates the sign.

This means that the level of the parking charge is not prominent, clear, or legible to the average driver. The BPA CoP explicitly requires prominence and comparability in font size and boldness. By relegating this critical contractual term to smaller, less visible text, the operator has failed to communicate the charge transparently, which further breaches Consumer Rights Act sections 62 and 68. Which state that:

Section 62: A consumer notice must be fair, and a term is unfair if it creates a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer

Section 68: Terms must be transparent, expressed in plain and intelligible language, and prominent, meaning brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that the average driver would be aware of them.

In this case, the £100 parking charge is not displayed prominently or transparently. Instead, it is buried in small print, failing the test of fairness and transparency. A driver cannot reasonably be expected to have consented to such a term when it is not presented clearly at the point of entry or within the key information of the signage.

The fact that this is the only sign present across the parking lot, reinforces that point that no contract was offered that any reasonable driver would have agreed to. Hiding important information, such as the £100 charge, in fine print is a breach of consumer rights act and BPA practices and opens up UKPC for legal suits for predatory practices.

No Entrance Sign and Inadequate/Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed

It is submitted that no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC, as there was no entrance signage and the existing signs were inadequate, unclear, and failed to meet the requirements of the BPA Codes of Practice, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

BPA Code of Practice 3.1.1 states:

“An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited, unless:

a) The nature of the premises makes this unnecessary such that drivers would not reasonably assume parking was permissible; or

b) Where not practicable e.g. where local planning restrictions prohibit such signs.”

The site in question lacks any form of entrance signage, either to the estate or the car park itself. This is a direct breach of Clause 3.1.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires an entrance sign to be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land. The estate does not meet either of the exceptions that would permit omission of such signage, and therefore UKPC is in clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice (see Figure 3).

[IMAGE]

Figure 3: Entrance to the car park taken from dashcam footage, dated and timestamped.

As a result, the driver could not have reasonably been informed of, or consented to, any terms before entering the site. Without adequate notice of the parking terms, no contract can be formed, and consequently no breach can arise.

Furthermore, the signage located in the car park contain a substantial amount of very small text displaying the terms and conditions – impossible to read whilst in a moving vehicle – and difficult to read in daylight whist on foot (let alone from a moving vehicle after dark).

BPA Code of Practice Clause A.3.2 states:

“Signs must always be readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.”

The signage displayed on site is positioned between 2m and 3m high – almost double the average adult height – and cannot be read or understood without standing directly beneath it. The small font size further reduces legibility, particularly in low-light conditions (see figure 4). This clearly breaches Clause A.3.2, as the signs are neither “readable” nor “understandable” at the point of parking.

[IMAGE]

Figure 4: A sign present in the car park during dusk from a parking space. Followed by the same sign during the day.

The Court of Appeals, in the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (comparable to this case), determined that a driver is not legally bound by the terms displayed on signage that was not seen. The court found that where land is not clearly marked or signed with prominent terms, no contract can be formed because the driver has not consented to unknown terms.

This judgment is binding case and supports my position. As in Vine, the signage at this site was either absent (at the entrance) or inadequate and unreadable from the driver’s perspective, meaning the driver cannot be deemed to have agreed to the terms, and no contract was formed.

(source: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html )

Equally, in a dissimilar case ‘ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis’, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

“Parking charge ‘neither extravagant nor unconscionable… taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices’”

The Court found that the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous and there were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park (see Figure 5)

[IMAGE]

Figure 5: Beavis Case Sign

By contrast, this case does not demonstrate the kind of ‘large lettering’ and ‘prominent signage’ that the Supreme Court found persuasive in ParkingEye v Beavis. The signs here are sporadically placed, unremarkable, and not immediately identifiable as parking terms. The wording is largely illegible, crowded with excessive text (see Figure 4). It is indisputable that decreasing the font in order to fit more information into a smaller space drastically reduces legibility, especially for a sign that must be read before parking.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes clear that:

“For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’ means notice given by

(a) the display of one or more notices which

(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.”

At [LOCATION], the parking charge is hidden in small print rather than displayed prominently. Large areas of the site contain no signage at all, and the full terms with the charge are not displayed in large, clear lettering. A driver could not reasonably be expected to have read or understood the charge whether passing by, entering, or parking.

This failure also breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 68, which requires:

“A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.”

Transparency is further defined as:

“expressed in plain and intelligible language and legible.”

The signage fails this test entirely. Unlike in Beavis, where the £85 charge was displayed in the largest font with contrasting colour across multiple large signs, here the £100 charge is buried within a block of small text and is neither legible nor prominent.

The BPA Code of Practice echoes this requirement. Clause 3.2 states:

“Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.”

This failure also breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 6(1)), which defines a misleading omission as follows:

“A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2) — the commercial practice omits material information, hides material information, provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely… and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.”

By hiding the £100 charge in small print and failing to display it prominently at the entrance or within the car park, UKPC has omitted material information in breach of Regulation 6. The driver cannot be deemed to have agreed to a term that was never made adequately clear, transparent, or legible.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words.

Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of where the vehicle was parked and, using contemporaneous photographs taken in the same lighting conditions, how their signage appeared on the material date from the driver’s perspective. Stock images or close-ups of isolated signs will not suffice.

I therefore invite the POPLA assessor to scrutinise the operator’s evidence and determine where, on the signage, the £100 parking charge is displayed in a font size and style that complies with Clause 3.2 of the BPA Code of Practice. If the charge cannot be readily located without close-up or magnified images, then it cannot be said to be ‘prominently displayed’ or ‘transparent’ as required by the BPA Code, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

SingleQuestionAccount6132 · 8 September at 9:54PM

No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 Requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus stopped or moving.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

UKPC’s NtK simply claims “The vehicle was on site at Crownhill Retail Park”

The NtK separately states that the vehicle “Arrived at 23:51:56 and departed at 00:49:17”. At no stage do UKPC explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

UKPC’s NtK states:

“ANPR and Warden Patrol services are in operation for the purposes of Car Park Management and enforcement, data reporting and analyzing consumer behavior and crime prevention”.

This confirms that ANPR is being used for general site monitoring, not for recording a defined period of parking as required by PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, and as such, keeper liability cannot be established. Only the driver could ever be liable, and the appellant has not been identified as the driver.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, UKPC are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require UKPC to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice & Non-Compliance

The BPA Code of Practice requires two grace periods: one at the start of parking and one at the end. Clause 5.2 states:

“A grace period as set out at Annex B to this Code must be allowed by the parking operator in addition to the parking period. A parking charge must not be issued during a Grace Period.”

Annex B, Table B.1 specifies that for sites under 500 parking spaces, such as Crownhill Retail Park (445 spaces), the minimum periods are:

· 5 minutes consideration period on arrival, and

· 10 minutes grace period at the end.

(Source: Retail Park Brochure)

This interpretation is supported by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA’s Head of Public Affairs:

“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.”

Finally, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 5.2 of the BPA Code of Practice to read ‘a minimum of eleven minutes’:

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 5.2 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

The recommendation reads:

“Reword Clause 5.2 to ‘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 11 minutes.”

(Source: BPA Meeting Minutes)

As stated earlier in this section, 5.2 does apply in this case (as we were with the car 4 minutes after the restricted parking time initiated). It is therefore argued that the duration the vehicle was parked falls within the ‘minimum 10 minute’ Grace Period, given:

a) UKPC allege the vehicle was “on site” for 57 minutes and 21 seconds (23:51:56 to 00:49:17)

b) Exhibit A and Exhibit B (time-stamped dashcam footage) shows the vehicle was only parked between 23:52 and 00:34 (42 minutes). This is a large discrepancy.

c) The driver returned to the vehicle at 00:34:06, just 4 minutes into the restricted period, and left shortly after.

Therefore:

· The arrival is covered by the consideration period, as the restriction did not begin until 00:30.

· The short overstay after 00:30 falls well within the mandatory 10-11 minute grace period.

BPA Code of Practice Clause 2.19(b) and 2.35 also distinguish between “parking” and “stopping.” Once the driver returned to the vehicle at 00:34, it ceased being parked and was only stopped prior to departure.

Accordingly, UKPC’s use of ANPR timestamps to measure “time on site” does not represent an actual period of parking. The BPA Code of Practice requires grace periods to be applied to genuine parking events, not the total time between camera captures.

The ANPR System is NOT located near the entrance to the car park but rather the estate. BPA Code of Practice and ICO Code of Practice Non-Compliance

The ANPR cameras are installed at the entrance to the wider [LOCATION] estate, not at the entrance to the managed car park. They therefore capture every vehicle entering the estate, regardless of whether it ever enters or uses the UKPC-managed car park (see Figure 2).

[IMAGE]

Figure 2: Shows a map of the estate, taken from planning applications, with ANPR camera locations, site entrance, and car park entrance added in.

BPA Code of Practice 3.1.1 that states:

“An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land”

By placing ANPR cameras at the estate entrance, UKPC are not measuring entry/exit to the car park (the “controlled land”), but instead to the wider business estate, which fails the transparency and fairness requirements under the BPA Code of Practice section 7:

“Parking operators may use camera technology to remotely manage parking on controlled land as long as they do so overtly, and in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.”

The BPA Code of Practice states what classifies as “controlled land” under section 1:

“This Code of Practice (“the Code”) specifies requirements for the operation and management of private parking by companies engaged in managing activities on two categories of controlled land:

• Open to the Public – this is land where there is an open invitation for any member of the public to park their vehicle, subject to terms and conditions. This will include free parking areas, where there is a limit on the length of time a vehicle may be parked and areas where parking may be made for a fee. It should be noted that even on such car parks there will be terms and conditions which must be complied with for example, parking within a bay, correctly inputting the vehicle’s registration number, making the correct payment (this list is not exhaustive). There are also likely to be areas within the car park where parking is not permitted.

• Restricted areas – This is all other areas of controlled land. […]”

[LOCATION] is an “Open to the Public” site, as the car park is free for up to 4 hours for any member of the public, subject to T&Cs. Therefore, UKPC must only monitor the car park itself, not the entire retail estate.

Furthermore, UKPC have breached UK GDPR Article 5 and ICO guidelines by placing these cameras at the entrance to the estate. Under Article 5:

· (1)(c) Data Minimisation - Data must be limited to what is necessary. Cameras at the estate entrance inevitably capture vehicles that never enter the UKPC-managed car park, which is excessive data collection.

· (1)(b) Purpose Limitations - Data must only be collected for the stated purpose. If the signs say the purpose is “car park management and enforcement,” then capturing all estate traffic exceeds that purpose.

This shows that even on private land, it is not lawful or proportionate to capture data about every vehicle entering, if many of those vehicles never enter the managed car park, which undermines the accuracy of any evidence, since the parking operator cannot prove that the vehicle was ever parked in the managed car park solely based on ANPR estate entry/exit times.

Therefore, I request UKPC to show strict proof that the vehicle was parked on controlled land for the period of time they allege. ANPR entry/exit times from cameras positioned at the estate entrance are not accurate evidence of parking, as they only record vehicles entering and leaving the wider site, not the controlled car park as the BPA Code of Practice mandates

SingleQuestionAccount6132 · 8 September at 9:56PM

The Signs are not transparent in warning drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

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.

BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 7 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. UKPC’ signs do not comply with these requirements because this 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 CoP and Consumer law.

The UKPC’s sign in the [LOCATION] car park (see Figure 5) states: