Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 7th Apr 18, 2:36 AM
    • 15Posts
    • 12Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    POPLA Appeal ParkingEye St. Martin's Precinct
    • #1
    • 7th Apr 18, 2:36 AM
    POPLA Appeal ParkingEye St. Martin's Precinct 7th Apr 18 at 2:36 AM
    Hi, I'm hoping someone could just a quick check of my POPLA appeal before I send it off and make sure everything is correct and relevant. I've read through the newies thread and to be honest have mainly copied from other peoples appeals but I did write most of my section 2 so would appreciate a once over.

    The situation is that in February this year the driver parked in a car park which allows 3 hours of free parking. The ANPR cameras state the driver was in the car park for 3 hours and 13 minutes. This is only 13 minutes over so my main appeal point is grace periods but I think the signage is inadequate too but I've listed quite a few things for the old 'throw the kitchen sink' approach.

    The driver has not been identified to ParkingEye and all I have done so far is send the initial appeal in the newbies thread word for word in order to get my POPLA Ref which I now have.

    You can find my initial (redacted) draft at https:[slash][slash]drive.google.com/file/d/1NUlBT5FIWSieWbAGFnZhEpeKCNFmHTX3/view?usp=sharing

    Replace [slash][slash] with an actual forward slashes in the link above - if someone could post the link as a URL I'd appreciate it as I can't.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Apr 18, 7:00 AM
    • 19,478 Posts
    • 30,811 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 7th Apr 18, 7:00 AM
    • #2
    • 7th Apr 18, 7:00 AM
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NUlBT5FIWSieWbAGFnZhEpeKCNFmHTX3/view?usp=sharing
    There's your (now live) link.

    Just a quick flick through your appeal - not the text, just the pictures (too early in the morning for any detailed reading).

    Personally, I don't think many of the pics help you as they stand. I'd ditch the ones using flash, unless you are arguing about signage content. A quick glance suggests standard PE sign layout and content, and I don't think you'll find there's much wrong with it (notwithstanding anything you've argued about the wording in your text - as I've said, I've not read it).

    Those without flash still show the presence of signage and that might be enough to convince an assessor that they were sufficiently prominent to need the driver to go over to read them.

    So I'd only use pics that basically show nothing. It is for PE to prove that at the time (of night) of the parking event the signage was prominent. They are highly unlikely to have time stamped photos of them are likely to show stock (daylight) photos to POPLA. This allows you, in the rebuttal phase of the process, to nail those as being inappropriate.

    Don't do PE's job for them by showing photos that may be misinterpreted by an assessor - less is definitely more in this particular context.

    A final point - I don't see a 'No Keeper Liability' section in your appeal. Was the PE NtK PoFA compliant, especially carrying the PoFA warning on the reverse side of the NtK?
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 7th Apr 18, 9:02 AM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,235 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 18, 9:02 AM
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 18, 9:02 AM
    That version of a PE sign is, of course, pretty much identical to the one in Beavis. The signage was regarded as unambiguous.

    Others are much more familiar with POPLA than me, but I don't think a signage point is much of a runner. Other arguments may be...
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Apr 18, 9:36 AM
    • 10,010 Posts
    • 9,842 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 18, 9:36 AM
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 18, 9:36 AM
    The sign at page 3 is, imo, unfit for purpose. I refer to the raft of unpunctuated small print at the bottom.

    Acceptable perhaps if you are building an aircraft carrier, but to park one's car at a shopping centre, it is unreasonable, to expect people to read and absorb it all. Why do they even need to? Surely such a over wordy contract is designed to entrap.

    I would suggest that OP dissects it and points out its shortcomings in the PoPLA appeal. Also, FWIIW, it is discriminatory towards BB holders and parents with small children.

    Can one reject a contract in whole because one objects to part?


    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 7th Apr 18, 10:17 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    • #5
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:17 AM
    • #5
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:17 AM
    Thank you all for your initial replies.

    Umkomaas, I have taken on board your point regarding the pictures and less is more and have removed the pictures with the flash on (though not from the online link as I haven't reuploaded yet). Also, the reason I didn't write a 'No Keeper Liability' section is that the NtK has a big section on the back talking about PoFA 2012 (so not a golden ticket) and it was issued 4 days after the incident so I couldn't see anything to imply it is not PoFA compliant.

    Johnersh, I did notice the high similarities to the Beavis sign which is why I haven't really mentioned much about the content other than the ambiguous wording of "Failure to comply with this" (compared to Beavis' wording "Failure to comply with the following") and the tiny text at the bottom coupled with the height of the signs on the ANPR poles. But my main point about the signage in general was the complete lack of entrance signs for the normal entry point through the other car park. As there is nothing on entry and there are no lights at all in the PE car park it's very easy to completely miss all the signs.
    Last edited by SalomonAssassin; 07-04-2018 at 10:22 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Apr 18, 10:30 AM
    • 19,478 Posts
    • 30,811 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:30 AM
    • #6
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:30 AM
    Also, the reason I didn't write a 'No Keeper Liability' section is that the NtK has a big section on the back talking about PoFA 2012 (so not a golden ticket) and it was issued 4 days after the incident so I couldn't see anything to imply it is not PoFA compliant.
    Thanks for confirming that. I just didn't want it to slip by if a 'golden ticket' had been issued. You can be sure that if the PoFA warning is included in the NtK and has been issued within time, it will be compliant.

    If I get time later, I'll have a read through - but much later today.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 7th Apr 18, 10:56 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    • #7
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:56 AM
    • #7
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:56 AM
    I would suggest that OP dissects it and points out its shortcomings in the PoPLA appeal
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I've just had a read through this small print and it mostly talks about the forming of the contract, how they will capture data and then how that data will be processed and who it will be shared with so I don't see much to flag up but then I'm not too sure what to be looking out for to be honest.

    I'll post the text below in case anyone else fancies a long and boring read!!


    ParkingEye Ltd (Company No: 5134454) is authorised by the landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf. We are not responsible for the car park surface, damage or loss to or from motor vehicles or general site safety. Parking is subject to the terms and conditions that apply within this notice (the "Parking Contract"). By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the "Parking Contract") and are authorised to park only if you follow these correctly, including making payment where directed, entering your registration details via the payment and/or permit systems. If you fail to comply you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the "Parking Charge"). This Parking Contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties. Any proposal to waive any part of this Parking Contract shall not be valid unless confirmed in writing by ParkingEye Ltd. By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems; correspondence; telephone; or in person, by Parking Eye Ltd and any authorised sub-contractor to check compliance with the Parking Contract. Furthermore, you consent to the processing of this data to request registered keeper details from the DVLA, where the Parking Contract is not adhered to and a) enforcement is undertaken remotely via ANPR; or b) the Parking Charge notice is issued manually by the attendant, but remains unpaid. Parking Charges incurred: a) will be notified to the registered keeper by post, where the ANP system identifies non-compliance with the Parking Contract, and may be reissued to the relevant driver on receipt of the driver's valid name and address; or b) will be notified to the driver, where an attendant identifies non-compliance with the Parking Contract, and may subsequently be notified to the registered keeper. Personal data may also be shared with the BPA, POPLA, mail service providers, credit reference agents, collection agents or solicitors for this purpose and any authorised sub-contractors. A reduction of at least 40% of the Parking Charge will be available for a period of 14 days. Failure to pay the Parking Charge within this period will result in the full amount becoming payable. Where Parking Charges remain unpaid beyond 28 days, recovery charges in respect of further action may apply. A charge reflecting the cost to ParkingEye may apply for payments made with a credit/debit card.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Apr 18, 11:05 AM
    • 10,010 Posts
    • 9,842 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #8
    • 7th Apr 18, 11:05 AM
    • #8
    • 7th Apr 18, 11:05 AM
    I don't see much to flag up but then I'm not too sure what to be looking out for to be honest.

    Nevertheless, it forms part of the contract, and should be read.

    I have just received a draft contract from my solicitor to buy a house. The contract is far shorter than that of a contract to park a car.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Apr 18, 8:01 PM
    • 19,478 Posts
    • 30,811 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 7th Apr 18, 8:01 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Apr 18, 8:01 PM
    I think you need to have another look at your Grace Periods. The BPA Code of Practice of 7 Jan 2018 is not as prescriptive about 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after. Look at 13.1.

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

    So then you need to say that nothing makes the driver aware that the parking time commences at entry - and this is all that PE are measuring - entry time. You then need to estimate the amount of time taken after passing the ANPR camera to circle round and find a suitable parking spot (comment especially if it was a tatty potholed bombsite type, ensuring you weren't going to damage your car, because PE take no responsibility if that happens), park up, look for the relevant sign, go over to it in the dark and attempt to read it, then make your decision to stay = x minutes (the 'reasonable time' as in 13.1).

    A similar exercise at the end of parking, time to leave the car park, cars queuing to access a busy road = y minutes. x+y = 13 minutes. But it needs to tally with the 3 hour point and the time shown as the exit time.

    On signage make sure you refer to any other other signs relating to car park instructions not put up by PE (I see you've commented on the 'Service Vehicle's only') which causes doubt and confusion as which apply and which do not and which if any are part of the contract, or are not. All take time to read to decipher their standing. If there's a plethora of retailers' signs too in the car park, say that they too add to the confusion.

    Hope this quick-skim overview helps. If you have some reasonable time before your POPLA deadline, see if others want to comment.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 07-04-2018 at 8:03 PM.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 1:20 AM
    • 61,680 Posts
    • 74,578 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If you have a week or so before needing to put this in, I am tempted to try the new ANPR information/ICO CoP mentioned in another thread and write you another appeal point to replace #6.

    Can't do that tonight!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 8th Apr 18, 7:14 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    I think you need to have another look at your Grace Periods. The BPA Code of Practice of 7 Jan 2018 is not as prescriptive about 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after. Look at 13.1.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Ah OK thanks for that. I wasn't sure if I fell under 13.1 or 13.2 as I'm not exactly sure what it means when it says "If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted" in the CoP. As I have used the example from the newbies guide as a template and lifted a lot of stuff from that and adapted it I did have some points regarding 13.1 but took them out as I thought I fell under 13.2. I'll go back and make some changes based on your suggestions and post a new revision later tonight hopefully.

    If you have a week or so before needing to put this in, I am tempted to try the new ANPR information/ICO CoP mentioned in another thread and write you another appeal point to replace #6.

    Can't do that tonight!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    The appeal rejection letter is dated 16th March so I assume the 28 days starts from that date so gotta be sent before Friday 13th April. If you get a chance then that would be brilliant but obviously no worries if not.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Apr 18, 7:24 PM
    • 19,478 Posts
    • 30,811 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    This is the new ANPR information/ICO CoP referred to (above) by CM.

    Please note - the paragraph numbers 16 & 17 are those from a previous case - make sure your paragraph numbering flows from the rest of your appeal.

    16. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

    i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

    ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

    iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and

    iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and

    v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the Data Protection Act (DPA). At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held, and

    16.1. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations under the DPA.

    16.2. In a similar instance of DPA failure when using ANPR cameras without full DPA compliance - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was unlawful; breaching principle one of the DPA.

    17. The Court's attention will be drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson(HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case, it is on all fours with the above point, because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. Paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case states: ''It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful''. Paragraph 28 continues - ''...cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.''

    17.1. Further, in RTA (Business Consultants) Limited v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015), at paragraph 34 the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years, that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that: ''The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If [...] the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''

    17.2. Even if there was a purported contract between the unidentified driver and the Claimant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the failure to comply with points #16 i - v above, as part of the legal obligations that must be communicated up front and/or undertaken by a consumer-facing service provider, some of which were required even before commencing any use of ANPR at all).

    17.3. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.

    17.4. In this case it was not lawful for the Claimant to process any data using ANPR camera systems upon which it relied for the entire ticketing regime, due to its failure to meet its specific legal obligations as a data processor of ANPR information. The collection of the information was unlawful; breaching principle one of the DPA.

    17.5. To add weight, the Defendant also cites from ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338, which concerns an alleged illegal contract involving a similar BPA member parking firm. Whilst the facts of that case are not relevant, the Judge's comments at paragraph 29 of the Transcript of theSomerfield case are of importance: ''At common law, historically, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the guilty party intended from the time of entering the contract unlawfully and cases where the intention to perform unlawfully was only made subsequently''. As has already been stated, in this case the problem arose at (and before) the formation of the alleged contract and was not in relation to any subsequent act. Laws LJ, in Somerfield, concluded that ParkingEye did not have an intention, when creating that contract, to deliberately break the law so the contract was upheld. Differently in this case, it is asserted that the Claimant did deliberately or negligently break the DPA and as it was a BPA member with access to a wealth of DPA compliance information, articles and legal advice, and being a signatory to the KADOE contract with the DVLA, the Claimant cannot be excused from, nor justify, their conduct in failing to meet their legal obligations.

    17.6. At paragraphs 65-74 of the Somerfield transcript, Laws LJ set out three factors which need to be considered in a defence of illegality. The Defendant submits that the key issues in this action are that:

    (i) the commission of an illegal wrong being present at the time of entering the contract means that the Claimant will not be able to enforce the contract.

    (ii) the illegality is central to the contract and is not merely a minor aspect, thus it should not be held to be too remote so as to render the contract enforceable.

    (iii) the nature of the illegality: in this case it was a breach of legal obligations regarding data, and not merely a civil tort as in Somerfield. The gravity of the illegality is therefore far greater.

    17.7. It should be noted that the issue of breach of the DPA also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was enacted after the final hearing in Beavis. This charge and use of ANPR by this claimant is both unfair and not transparent and can be fully distinguished from Beavis, where none of the issues in the Defendant's points 16 and 17 above were argued.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 7:27 PM
    • 61,680 Posts
    • 74,578 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The appeal rejection letter is dated 16th March so I assume the 28 days starts from that date so gotta be sent before Friday 13th April.
    You actually have 32 days, so longer than you think, honestly.

    The above version was written for a defence, but I'd like to write a POPLA version. You can test it!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 10:20 PM
    • 61,680 Posts
    • 74,578 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Here I've just pointed a pepipoo poster towards what to write for a new POPLA point:


    Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119695&st=0&p=1373112!!!entry1 373112
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-04-2018 at 10:23 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 13th Apr 18, 12:52 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    Thanks for all the suggestions so far.

    I have added to point 1 so it looks a lot more like the original from the newbies thread with some added points inspired by Umkomaas' post (though haven't included specific timings yet as I haven't had a chance to go back to the site in the last couple of days)
    I've also added a couple of bits to point 2 but no major changes there really other than the removal of the photos with the flash on.
    I've also added a point 7 regarding ICO CCTV Code of Practice. Wasn't sure if I should have just replaced point 6 completely with it or add it as point 7 so I added it but let me know if you think otherwise.
    The rest of the points are unchanged.

    Link is here (appreciate if someone could "linkify" it again please)
    https:[slash][slash]drive.google.com/file/d/1zNb032FgDm-HJbanbsJZssyj6UOzNSKQ/view?usp=sharing

    I would specifically appreciate your thoughts on the new point 7 about ICO's CCTV Code of Practice.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 1:02 AM
    • 9,280 Posts
    • 9,544 Thanks
    KeithP
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zNb032FgDm-HJbanbsJZssyj6UOzNSKQ/view

    Not had time to read all of it yet, but the first thing that strikes me is that your sign shown in figure 1 is far to big.
    It is the biggest picture in the document.
    Suggest it should be no bigger than Figure 3 or 4, and perhaps not lit by flash.
    I know you are not making the point about visibility here, but it looks to me to be a far too good a picture generally.
    Last edited by KeithP; 13-04-2018 at 1:15 AM.
    .
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 13th Apr 18, 12:39 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    Oh yeah that's because I was doing a standardised width on the pictures before but now that I've taken out the other pictures with flash I agree it does look a bit big. I'll resize it to the same as Figures 3/4.

    In terms of the lighting, I guess I just wanted to show what the layout of the sign was and how there was a lot of small text at the bottom but maybe I can get a picture without the flash and try and still show that but also keep the low light appearance and just let ParkingEye provide a better picture if the POPLA adjudicator wants to see it clearly.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 12:50 PM
    • 9,280 Posts
    • 9,544 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...maybe I can get a picture without the flash and try and still show that but also keep the low light appearance and just let ParkingEye provide a better picture if the POPLA adjudicator wants to see it clearly.
    Originally posted by SalomonAssassin
    Yes, that's the way to go. Let PE prove their signs are legible - no need for you to do that for them.
    .
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 14th Apr 18, 10:22 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    Thanks for all the suggestions so far.

    I have added to point 1 so it looks a lot more like the original from the newbies thread with some added points inspired by Umkomaas' post (though haven't included specific timings yet as I haven't had a chance to go back to the site in the last couple of days)
    I've also added a couple of bits to point 2 but no major changes there really other than the removal of the photos with the flash on.
    I've also added a point 7 regarding ICO CCTV Code of Practice. Wasn't sure if I should have just replaced point 6 completely with it or add it as point 7 so I added it but let me know if you think otherwise.
    The rest of the points are unchanged.

    Link is here (appreciate if someone could "linkify" it again please)
    https:[slash][slash]drive.google.com/file/d/1zNb032FgDm-HJbanbsJZssyj6UOzNSKQ/view?usp=sharing

    I would specifically appreciate your thoughts on the new point 7 about ICO's CCTV Code of Practice.
    Originally posted by SalomonAssassin
    Apologies for repeating myself but I was hoping to get some feedback before I send this off in the next couple of days - mainly on the last section about the ICO CoP.

    Any thoughts?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 18, 10:08 PM
    • 61,680 Posts
    • 74,578 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The ICO point looks good, well done for being the guinea pig to this new idea; I hope it has legs!

    I would just add where you put near the end that there is nothing on the sign about your right to a Subject Access Request (SAR), that there is also nothing on any paperwork, PCN, rejection letter, no privacy statement about data, despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the PCN, this is the operator paying mere 'lip service' to the right to a complaint, which is not the same thing at all. Nothing tells you anything about your right to subject access and this is a mandatory point in the ICO CoP, which in turn is mandatory within the BPA CoP and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper's data unlawful.

    I would remove #3 as there is no point in that argument of the PCN is a POFA one.

    Remove #5 and #6 which detract from the rest of the appeal and have no legs at POPLA.

    And I would not have that yellow sign AT ALL in your appeal, unless you crop it to only show the (bottom of the notice) small print, and nothing above it. You are shooting yourself in the foot showing a sign talking about 3 hours 'max stay'.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-04-2018 at 10:14 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,306Posts Today

8,411Users online

Martin's Twitter