Help with POPLA appeal

jack123456 · 20 May 2017 at 10:10AM

Hi,

I have a very rough draft of the appeal to POPLA, it turns out after I have further examined the parking ticket that was issued and it was not even possible anyone could have been at the Hospital on the date given as I was in work on this date and had the car with me. The date the machine malfuctioned as I have been informed was on 31/01/2017. I understand that my appeal may be very poor and will most likely need to be re-worded, but any help at this point will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

'
Parking Eye Appeal

PCN Number: xxxxxxxx

POPLA Reference: xxxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to appeal a PCN issued by Parking Eye, this was issued on 01/03/2017 for an alleged event that was on 23/02/2017 at Sunderland Royal Hospital. I am appealing as the registered keeper. I am exercising my right to not name the driver of the vehicle, nor will that be confirmed. I will also make you aware that the date of the alleged event is also incorrect; I have been made aware that the date of parking was 31/01/2017 and there was a machine malfunction with parking machine number to confirm this. There was no visit made to the aforementioned place on the date stated in the parking notice given by Parking Eye Ltd. I myself was in work on the day of the alleged event and I had the car with me on this date between the hours of xx-xx, so it is not possible that a visit could have been made during the stated times; I put it to you that Parking Eyes ANPR system is faulty and has incorrect dates.

I have been informed by the driver at this point that the machine was not working properly; this meant that due to the failure of the machine to record the VRN correctly, it has shown as a failure against the VRN the payment made. I have been made aware that when the VRN and the payment was entered into the machine, it subsequently timed out, restarted and no ticket was produced, also, the machine did not give any money back so I am told. In good faith that the machine had accepted the money and the parking was paid for, the driver continued with what they were doing. I have been forwarded photo evidence of the machine in question and the number of the machine (PE0314) and these show as the Chester Road Wing car park.'

tboo · 20 May 2017 at 11:58AM

jack123456 wrote: »

Hi,

I have a very rough draft of the appeal to POPLA, it turns out after I have further examined the parking ticket that was issued and it was not even possible anyone could have been at the Hospital on the date given as I was in work on this date and had the car with me. The date the machine malfuctioned as I have been informed was on 31/01/2017. I understand that my appeal may be very poor and will most likely need to be re-worded, but any help at this point will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

'
Parking Eye Appeal

PCN Number: xxxxxxxx

POPLA Reference: xxxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to appeal a PCN issued by Parking Eye, this was issued on 01/03/2017 for an alleged event that was on 23/02/2017 at Sunderland Royal Hospital. I am appealing as the registered keeper. I am exercising my right to not name the driver of the vehicle, nor will that be confirmed. I will also make you aware that the date of the alleged event is also incorrect; I have been made aware that the date of parking was 31/01/2017 and there was a machine malfunction with parking machine number to confirm this. There was no visit made to the aforementioned place on the date stated in the parking notice given by Parking Eye Ltd. I myself was in work on the day of the alleged event and I had the car with me on this date between the hours of xx-xx, so it is not possible that a visit could have been made during the stated times; I put it to you that Parking Eyes ANPR system is faulty and has incorrect dates.

I have been informed by the driver at this point that the machine was not working properly; this meant that due to the failure of the machine to record the VRN correctly, it has shown as a failure against the VRN the payment made. I have been made aware that when the VRN and the payment was entered into the machine, it subsequently timed out, restarted and no ticket was produced, also, the machine did not give any money back so I am told. In good faith that the machine had accepted the money and the parking was paid for, the driver continued with what they were doing. I have been forwarded photo evidence of the machine in question and the number of the machine (PE0314) and these show as the Chester Road Wing car park.'

More experierenced posters will comment more on the draft if it was to be sent, but wouldn't it be correct to insert where work was and get evidence that you were there

(Sorry I lurk as I like to get clued up on all that is happening - I have helped a friend's husband - she was the RK he was the driver, she went mad and said to pay, so I said give them invoices of the expensive purchase - invoice cancelled)

jack123456 · 20 May 2017 at 12:02PM

That's a valid point, I was expecting there to be many a change required to my draft, but that to me sounds like a valid point. The only thing to prove I am in would be a spreadsheet, which is how our scheduling works. Only other option may be to put a managers e-mail (with their permission) and request they can vouch for me being in work on that day.

Good point though, thank you!

Umkomaas · 20 May 2017 at 12:54PM

@OP - the gist of what you've drafted is okay as part of a much longer and detailed appeal. The initial strategy is to make it so detailed that PE are just not prepared to put in the amount of effort to deal with every point you make. They therefore withdraw and concede your POPLA appeal, saving themselves manpower and the POPLA fee they would pay if they were to contest it. They do that many times.

So go to the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3, where there are a number of ready written, lengthy appeal points (any of which should see POPLA uphold in your favour if it got to that stage) for you to copy and paste into your own. The appeal point you've drafted already will be added as a real 'killer' for PE to rebut, and hopefully they will throw their cards in.

Also do a forum search on 'ParkingEye POPLA' and look at some of the recent appeals, many of which have resulted in concession. Use parts from those too, if appropriate.

Let's see a full draft for critique and fine tuning before you submit to POPLA. Don't miss the POPLA deadline.

Coupon-mad · 20 May 2017 at 1:06PM

Agreed, that draft shows us an introductory point only. It needs all the usual templates designed to be so long & detailed that they drive a PPC away from bothering to contest.

jack123456 · 20 May 2017 at 1:52PM

The POPLA appeal online is only 2000 words isn't it? I've seen some very long appeals that would surely go over 2000 words, this may sound silly but how does that work?

Coupon-mad · 20 May 2017 at 2:00PM

The POPLA appeal online is only 2000 words isn't it?

No. We've been doing ten page POPLA appeals for years! You upload the illustrated storybook appeal as a PDF under other, just as explained umpteen zillion times before...

jack123456 · 20 May 2017 at 2:15PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No. We've been doing ten page POPLA appeals for years! You upload the illustrated storybook appeal as a PDF under other, just as explained umpteen zillion times before...

My apologies, I had seen this before but my mind a bit boggled by the appeal as I have never had to do anything such as this before. My mistake.

jack123456 · 20 May 2017 at 3:32PM

I have managed to get an appeal together, hopefully it's not too bad! Any feedback would be great!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to appeal a PCN issued by Parking Eye, this was issued on 01/03/2017 for an alleged event that was on 23/02/2017 at Sunderland Royal Hospital. I am appealing as the registered keeper. I am exercising my right to not name the driver of the vehicle, nor will that be confirmed.

I am appealing on the grounds of:

Parking Eye’s Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates given.
Faulty Payment Machine
ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

1. Parking Eye’s Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates given.

I wish to make you aware that the date of the alleged event is incorrect; I have been made aware that the date of parking was 31/01/2017 and there was a machine malfunction with a parking machine to confirm this (PE0314). There was no visit made to the aforementioned place on the date stated in the parking notice given by Parking Eye Ltd. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) must comply with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

I am paying particular attention to the fact that the period of time that the notice must be received in the post is 14 days, as you can see by the below images, the dates on the machines are completely different from the dates stated in the alleged event. On the date in question of the parking event, I myself was at work during these times and I had the car with me, making it impossible for the car to be in the car park on the stated date. I work in Newcastle and this event was in Sunderland.

jack123456 · 20 May 2017 at 3:32PM

2. Faulty Payment Machine

I have been informed by the driver at this point that the machine was not working properly; this meant that due to the failure of the machine to record the VRN correctly, it has shown as a failure against the VRN the payment made. I have been made aware that when the VRN and the payment was entered into the machine, it subsequently timed out, restarted and no ticket was produced, also, the machine did not give any money back so I am told. In good faith that the machine had accepted the money and the parking was paid for, the driver continued with what they were doing. I have been forwarded photo evidence of the machine in question and the number of the machine (PE0314) and these photos show as the Chester Road Wing car park. In the event that the machine had failed, there was no clear signage to confirm the next events if the machine was to fail.

ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

As stated in point 1, the date of the alleged event is incorrect; this has with it proof in the form of 2 photographs showing the time and date stamped on the faulty payment machines.

I therefore require Parking Eye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. As the parking charge is wholly based on the ability for the ANPR camera to accurately take images of entry and exit to the car park. It is vital that Parking Eye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these three points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was ‘fundamentally flawed’ as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer has been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 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.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours Faithfully,

Help with POPLA appeal

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free

****Help with POPLA appeal****

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free

Help with POPLA appeal