POPLA draft. Please help

spookusofbrin · 16 May 2018 at 2:24PM

Hi everyone,

After high-jacking someone else's thread with similar circumstances I have decided to start my own thread.

I have done some research into other threads and read the Newbies post.

I received a NTK from NCP as their ANPR cameras clocked the vehicle entering and exiting the car park 14 minutes and 6 seconds apart without the purchase of a ticket.

I appealed the 'fine' by using the template from the Newbies thread. They rejected and I now have a code for the POPLA stage.

I would really appreciate it if someone could give my draft a look over to make sure it looks ok before I submit it.

Here is the draft:

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
Subject: Parking charge reference number: XXXXXXXXXX, Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from National Car Parks Limited (NCP) on the following points:

1.Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – Non Compliance.
2. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
The details on above points are as listed below:-

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

"Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice."

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

"You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action."

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

"You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes."

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

"If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract."

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear -a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a "reasonable grace period" to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):

"The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket."

"No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability."

Finally, some 3 years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

"Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period."

The recommendation reads:

"Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes."

This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum -a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are therefore not taken into account. As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms "reasonable period" and "reasonable grace period" stated in 13.1 and 13.2respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

If the BPA feel "a minimum of 11 minutes" is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which NCP claim was 14 minutes and 6 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

a) The site was in very poor condition at the time of visiting, with a lot of large pot holes. This made navigating around the car park both hazardous and time consuming. ( repairs have since been carried out which can be seen in my photos of evidence)

b) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3)and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract. Please see photo 1 and 2 which show the car park veiwed from where the vehicle was situated. You can clearly see that there are no signs visible in either direction. This point is further highlighted in section 4.

c) The lengthiness of NCP signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in a "Car Park Terms and Conditions" section (the wording "Please Read These Terms and Conditions Carefully" clearly imply it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny text against a bright yellow background that, in full sunlight is incredibly hard to read(see picture 3).

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.

• Read the full terms and conditions.

• Decipher the confusing information being presented.

• Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.

• Return to car and safely leave the car park.

spookusofbrin · 16 May 2018 at 2:25PM

2. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)!!!8212; (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further !!!8216;If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.!!!8217;

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper!!!8217;s address within the !!!8216;relevant period!!!8217; which is highlighted as a total of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

As per the notice received by post from NCP on [ENTER DATE], the date of offence is mentioned as [ENTER date WHEN THE OFFENCE Parking occurred] and date of sending this notice is [ENTER DATE WHEN NOTICE WAS SENT], which is more than 14 days after the offence.
I have attached the copy of the same in the evidence attachments section.

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
"There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

spookusofbrin · 16 May 2018 at 2:28PM

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

Link removed

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

Link removed

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. See picture 4 which shows the signs at the entrance of the car park. The large sign relating to 'Terms and Conditions' with important information about ANPR cameras and 'fines' being obscured by the parking charge tarrif sign as well as lamp posts and railings. The fact that this signage has to be read whist traveling into the site makes their placement completely unaccepable.
They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car (picture 3)
Please also see picture 5 which shows another 'Terms and Conditions' sign, again with tiny text which is placed on a wall to the left when entering the site. The vehicle in question entered the site from the left of the entrance. From this direction it is virtually impossible to see this sign when entering the site, let alone read the information.

I have attached numbered photos of the signs in the evidence attachments section.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden behind other signs, railings and posts (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no visible full terms displayed at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

Link removed

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

Link removed
''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2" letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3" or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

Link removed

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

Link removed

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Evidences
1. scan of Non Compiant NTK
2. Photos of parking signs not meeting the guidelines.

spookusofbrin · 16 May 2018 at 8:33PM

Have I made it too long?

Coupon-mad · 16 May 2018 at 8:36PM

No such thing as too long at POPLA stage, in my book! That's fairly short by my standards!

What about the ICO Code ANPR surveillance camera point (search for it).

But this is wrong:

As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout

Yes they did send a NTK, the PCN letter was the NTK. Are you saying it didn't arrive by day 15?

spookusofbrin · 18 May 2018 at 10:03PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No such thing as too long at POPLA stage, in my book! That's fairly short by my standards!

What about the ICO Code ANPR surveillance camera point (search for it).

But this is wrong:
Yes they did send a NTK, the PCN letter was the NTK. Are you saying it didn't arrive by day 15?

Thank you Coupon-mad. You are right. The letter was issued 10 days after the alleged offence.
Would I have to delete the whole of section 2?

Also, I will look into the ICO Code ANPR surveillance camera point

Coupon-mad · 19 May 2018 at 11:23PM

Would I have to delete the whole of section 2?

I would. Plenty of better bullets to hit them with.

spookusofbrin · 21 May 2018 at 10:02PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would. Plenty of better bullets to hit them with.

So, if I delete the current section 2 and replace it with the following ICO code point. Anything else I should add?

4. 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

!!!12288;

BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:

!!!12288;

"It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or

registered keeper data, you must:

!!!12288;

- be registered with the Information Commissioner

- keep to the Data Protection Act

- follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data

!!!12288;

- 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

!!!12288;

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of

Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:

!!!12288;

Link removed

!!!12288;

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

!!!12288;

"This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment

including:

!!!12288;

• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);"

!!!12288;

"the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations

under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should

follow the recommendations of this code."

"If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate

whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it."

!!!12288;

"You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to

address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective

solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on

individuals"

!!!12288;

"You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the

scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a

privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact

assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper

assessment."

!!!12288;

"If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you

undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its

introduction is proportionate and necessary."

!!!12288;

"Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce

parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies

how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to

minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when

a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park."

!!!12288;

"Note:

... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality

and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon

fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations

should therefore also consider these issues."

!!!12288;

"A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the

surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a

lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate."

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that

if NCP wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy

impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is

proportionate and necessary. It also states that NCP must regularly

evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

!!!12288;

It therefore follows that I require NCP to provide proof of regular privacy

impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and

BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact

assessments to show that its use has "a lawful basis and is justified, necessary

and proportionate".

!!!12288;

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

!!!12288;

"5.3 Staying in Control

Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance

system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the

code’s requirements in practice. You should:

!!!12288;

• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it

should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their

request;"

!!!12288;

"7.6 Privacy Notices

!!!12288;

It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in

relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a

requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to

ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance

system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground

level or more prevalent then it may first appear.

!!!12288;

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s

right of subject access."

!!!12288;

NCP has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the

keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, NCP has not

stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on

any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data

Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the

ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the

BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR,

such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.

!!!12288;

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and

in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law,

POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

Coupon-mad · 21 May 2018 at 10:23PM

Yes that'll do, and NCP will probably give up by this time next week!

spookusofbrin · 22 May 2018 at 8:03AM

Excellent. Thanks Coupon-mad.
I!!!8217;ll Keep you posted on the outcome.

spookusofbrin · 22 June 2018 at 9:19AM

The evidence from NCP has been received though the post and I would like to add comments on this at the POPLA appeal page, however there is a maximum of 2000 characters in the comments box.
Is there any way of extending this as I have some strong points that need to be made clear.

Many thanks.

POPLA draft. Please help

Comments

Categories

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