Reasonably unfair?

This bit from the Newbie appeal template, do we still include it, as they have provided 4 photos of my car in a space, 2 supposedly with the above sign visible in background, but cannot actually make out anything on the sign, then the unreadable photo of 'the sign' in an above post and one of the painted sign.

2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract
3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.

Appeal Sent.

In the automated email reply it states "If your appeal contains a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998, please send your Notice to customer.service@totalparking.co.uk."

So, because we used the Newbie template we included "You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner."

Anyone know whether we send the entire appeal on to the customer services, or just the Section 10 Notice that e.g. "I do not wish for them to use my information" ?

And thanks for all the help thus far.

Hi again appeals gurus.
From TPS "Unfortunately, after careful consideration your representation has been declined. It follows therefore, that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued and and a gesture of goodwill we will hold the charge at the reduced amount of £40 for a further 14 days.
The signage fully comply with the BPA code of practice. Are visible and ample.
1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no. Answer: Yes
2. Does the parking charge represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by the alleged parking contravention. Answer yes or no. If yes please demonstrate the commercial justification for an amount of £70 at that parking site (disused XXX nursery). Answer: No
3. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract. 4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
Been sent the photos as well as a close-up of the sign taken 3 weeks before my car was there, but even this close-up is completely unreadable. They say that my car is clearly near the sign, but it is not obvious that this IS the sign in question?
5. Please provide evidence or certainty as to your contractual authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices outside this disused XXX nursery. Answer: we are contracted directly by the trust and we will disclose authority to act in due course to POPLA if required.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you have a number of options; 1. ID the driver, 2. pay if were the driver, 3. Appeal to POPLA, 4. do nothing, or something about the Ombudsman being appropriate for appeal but TPS have chosen to use POPLA instead.

I am looking into the previous POPLA appeals and am amazed that my original 3-page first draft to TPS paled in comparison to these 21-page POPLA appeals.

Is it normal practice for parking firms to reject saying that their signage conforms to the BPA code of practice when they fail the large lettering prominence of Beavis Vs ParkingEye and that they are not positioned as per The Department of Health & Social Care has published Guidance (2015) for NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles.

This car park was several spaces on the left of a one-way street (passenger side as approached, behind a 3-4 foot hedge). The one and only sign with conditions was positioned behind the middle space of the car park more than 7 foot/2 metres above the ground. Therefore given the vehicle was in the first space of the car park no sign informing of charge being in place for that car park had not been encountered BEFORE the car park was entered (driving level with the sign would have required the driver to reverse on a one-way street to get back to the space). When level with the sign from the road the sign would be hidden by the roof of the vehicle, and the terms are so tiny binoculars would be needed from that distance. This would mean exiting the vehicle and approaching it to read the sign, either by parking in one of car park spaces or parking on double yellows blocking the one-way street, one supposedly breaches the car park terms, the other breaks the law. I also think this sign is discriminatory: given the height of the sign and small print I don't think a shorter person or person in a wheelchair with perfect vision would be able read the terms and conditions from directly below the sign without the aid of something like binoculars - also not sure how a person in a wheelchair would get between other vehicles to get anywhere near the sign (immediately behind the spaces is a grassy embankment)?

I know I have a lot more reading of example POPLA appeals to do, but does this sound like something POPLA would overthrow given that the sign is supposed to be read BEFORE parking but is unreadable from by a driver in a vehicle?