Total Parking Solutions: two visits but they thought it's one long one

Guys dad, thank you so much. I've made changes based on your input.

My friend have signed a statement of witness to support my claim that I met up with him between the two visits so I'm going to include that anyway.

3 more things:
1. I deliberately excluded other points such as signage, contract, etc because I want to make my appeal straightforward. Do you think I should include those as well?

2. Should I appeal online or by post to POPLA?

3. Please can you review my appeal draft one more time?

Thank you so much!

PS: I tried calling Trading Standards and they said there's nothing they can do because I don't have evidence to disprove the PPC's claim. Insane!

---

Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code: XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration:XXXXXXX
Vehicle Make and Model: Honda FR-V
Vehicle Colour: Silver

PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: 26/10/2013
Date of notice: XXXXXXX 2013

On the above date, I was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for overstaying the parking limit at Cambridge Retail Park. The Operator, Total Parking Solutions, claimed that I stayed there for 321 minutes.

The truth is, on that day I made two visits to the retail park, each totalling less than 30 minutes:
1. My first visit was made around 9:10 when I went to Halfords to purchase lightbulbs for my car. I completed the purchase at 9.23, fitted the lightbulbs, and left the retail park at approximately 9:35.
2. My second visit was made around 14:00 when I returned some items at Dunelm Mill. I completed the return at 14:20 and left the retail park at approximately 14:25.

Between the two visits I took my daughter to her swimming lesson, met up with my friend, Mr A C, at a park, and had lunch at home with Mr C. With this appeal I have included Mr C's signed statement of witness supporting my claims.

I challenged this PCN based on the fault of the Operator's ANPR device used in the retail park due to the fact it only captured the entry of my first visit and exit of my second visit. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

There are a number of contradictory information in the evidence shown by the Operator so far:
1. In the PCN you can see that both the IN and OUT dates are date-stamped with 26/10/2013 14:35:00. Although the IN is then further stamped with 09:14.
2. The appeal rejection email from the Operator included more photos of my car. The IN photo in the email is the same photo used in the OUT photo on the PCN. This is very confusing and convinced me that either the Operator's ANPR system is faulty or the Operator's staff are not properly examining the evidence.

Therefore I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1. ANPR accuracy

I require the Operator to show evidence to rebut my point that I made two separate visits to the retail park, each totalling less than 30 minutes. I have no evidence to prove this which puts me at a disadvantage because it is the Operator who has the ability to prove or disprove my assertion and the Operator has a financial interest in the outcome of this adjudication. Therefore I demand that the Operator supply the unaltered sequenced copy of images of all vehicle comings and goings in the Cambridge Retail Park between 9:20-9:55 (approximate OUT time of my first visit) and 13:50-14:25 (approximate IN time of my second visit) on 26/10/2013 to prove or disprove my assertion. It is critical that the images are in sequence to ensure that every single vehicle comings and goings are included without exception and that no image has been removed.

In addition to that, this Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator 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. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these 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 form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

2.The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

With all this in mind, I request that this appeal be allowed.

Yours faithfully,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

---