Evidence photos only show registration number for 15 seconds.

scamdodger

In answer to @Coupon-mad

No signage at the road entrance and the PAY TO PARK road marking is in an unlit area and presumably non-contractual!

BikingBud

But you didn't park!

Repeat ad infinitum.

James_Poisson

You need that photo at night in the same conditions the pcn was issued, but nothing on site conforms, they will say it does in their template documentation but the person compiling it will not even have been to site it's all bluff.

scamdodger

The IAS appeal (for what it is worth) will be going in.

In summary;

1. Quote from Jopson vs Homeguard (2016) clearly pointing out the distinction between loading and parking (paragraphs 19 and 20).
2. Operators photos show loading activity.
3. Ts & Cs on signs only states 'No parking on or over double yellow lines'.
4. Loading is not parking and is allowed on double yellow lines.
5. The driver could not have seen any contractual signage.

I can post the full text if forum members would like to critique it. It will not include photographs (that have been posted previously).

Coupon-mad

I think that's a mistake and not how to try to win this one at IAS.

The IAS primarily look for evidence and law, including:

As point 1: dated (metadata showing) photo evidence that there is no entrance sign. Quote from the CoP clause and the Appendix about entrance signs.

Then quote from the Code about GDPR and camera surveillance warning signs. You could add to this first killer section:

• The lack of Entrance sign means it cannot even be seen that it is managed private land, let alone identify who was managing the site. The operator's name is simply not there, and there is also no visible warning about camera surveillance and no data privacy notice. This is a misleading omission which contravenes the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice ('the CoP') as well as CMA-enforced consumer protection and ICO-enforced data use laws.
• Under the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidelines, if an ANPR or CCTV system automatically triggers a PC by mail without meaningful human review, it is Automated Decision-Making ('ADM') with significant and/or legal effects. This invokes high-threshold transparency duties under the UK GDPR (amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025).
• The intersections between camera surveillance using ADM, and transparency obligations create distinct layers of compliance under ICO surveillance camera rules.
• The operator has breached all entrance sign and data information requirements. Articles 13 & 14 of the UK GDPR defines the right to be informed, requiring organisations to provide clear and concise privacy information to individuals about how their personal data is collected and used.
• Under the ICO's transparency framework, the entrance signage must serve as a Layered Privacy Notice and must deliver specific information before the driver passes the camera's field of vision.
• Especially in hours of darkness, it must be clear that a 24/7 CCTV camera system is in use and if there is no entrance signage to direct motorists to a data controller identity and privacy policy, the data collection fails the core legal principle of being "fair, lawful and transparent".
• For an CCTV system to legally function under current ICO rules, the GDPR sign must satisfy both the CoP and data laws. These require: -(a) clear disclosure that ANPR/CCTV enforcement is in use before the recording field begins -(b) the exact identity of the operator (data controller) and -(c) direct contact details or a URL/QR code to the full privacy notice which details the individual's right to object, request human intervention, or challenge ADM.
• ⁠Further, to form a contract there must be a meeting of minds: offer, acceptance, consideration. All absent, due to inadequate signs. The Competition and Markets Authority ('CMA') have stated that failure to provide material information breaches s227(2) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
  

Then add your other images (date & time taken metadata showing: get the camera device owner to screenshot their pics to reveal that).

Show the t&cs sign and CCTV circled in the far distance but don't quote the sign. It is irrelevant to this stop at the site entrance. Terms were not seen. Could not be.

Do not use Jopson. They'll ignore it.

scamdodger

Wow.

Your comprehensive and well informed technical and legal points make my attempts at an appeal look seriously lacking!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82154287#Comment_82154287

The main thrust of your argument is the lack of signage, and I will certainly take all your points on board.

If you say Jopson is not worth pursuing, I will not do so.

Is there any mileage in including other points? ie;

• Operators CCTV photos show loading activity on the DYL's.
• DYL's are commonly interpreted as meaning no parking, but loading/unloading permitted.

Many, many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Yes you can add those two points as well.

i copied & pasted all that from a court defence I put in for a friend this summer, where there was an entrance sign but it was lacking. Your case is worse: literally no signs at all and no camera GDPR stuff.

scamdodger

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152858#Comment_82152858

Update;

Having appealed via IAS and received a response from Euro Parking Services, indeed their comments are false and misleading.

EPS has produced a site map as 'evidence' which purports to show the position of the entrance sign, annotated as 1 in an orange circle:

-except it doesn’t actually exist…

They have also made up some utter nonsense, saying the vehicle stopped to pick up a passenger and the entry and exit access was being blocked (obvious from their photos this was not the case).

I will be fascinated to see what IAS make of this, although I'm sure they will find a way of rejecting the appeal!!

James_Poisson

That screen grab is a Google Earth image that has been annotated with coloured dots with numbers it isn't dated, it is probably from an initial site instruction to the signage installer and is not evidence of anything that existed at the time of the event.

The CCTV images they produced at the time equally do not show any evidence of any signage at all, your own photos show there is no entrance signage so their aerial shot is again not accurate as sign No 1 does not exist.

These points need bringing up, I will be interested how the IAS pass this off but I'm sure they will come up with some rubbish.

1505grandad

Oh I am sure(sic) that all is above board according to above.