PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN in Ruislip Lido, Vehicle not authorised to park
Pavy
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 14:21
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Hi all

We visited Ruislip Lido (London Borough of Hillingdon) after nearly 1 year to enjoy the weather on a Wednesday evening with our toddler . Only on our return to the car park we realized that the car park is not just free. when checked other cars in the same lane none of them had any parking tickets, so we thought we wouldn't need one. The signs were confusing, it was late to undo anything and no one was around to confirm we left the car park.

A week and half later we received PCN for vehicle parked @ M&B -The Water's Edge- Ruslip, Reservoir Road by remaining at the car park without authorisation.

I am not sure what to do, any ground to challenge?

Appreciate your help.

Thank you!


[Image removed]


This post has been edited by Fredd: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 16:56
Reason for edit: Image removed at OP's request
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 14:21
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Pavy
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 13:21
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Sure I will draft my appeal this weekend with photographs from the car park highlighting poor signage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 18:48
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
From: bedfordshire
Member No.: 90,851



Hi
I have had a ticket cancelled for this car park in the last 2 months due to the confusing signage.

"The signs were not clear, and terms and conditions cannot be read from ground level. There are no signs that can be read from the car for disabled people as clearly
stated in the code of conduct. Clause 18.9 and 28.8 - So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign
containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set
aside for disabled motorists.
Before entering into a contract, the terms and conditions should be available and clear. Your T's & C's are placed so high up on poles it is impossible to
agree to them let alone read them. Clause 13.1 and 30.1 - If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally
permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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.
This is the first time back since my husband died last year and I really think local residents should have been informed about these changes. Your signage is not only
illegible from the ground, but your entrance signage puts the free parking sign above the Hillingdon council sign and the arrows go the other way.
I clearly went to the nearest machine and got my ticket and displayed this in my vehicle. As a pensioner with mobility issues I do not believe I should have to pay for
this ticket as no contract was entered into due to lack of correct signage and request that this ticket is cancelled. The pictures attached were taken when I revisited the
site to try and read the T's & C's to understand where I had parked that day. Thank you
YOUR ONLINE SITE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY UPLOADS SO PLEASE CONTACT ME FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE"




Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 12:51
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Thank you "Law Wannabe" I was planning to visit again last weekend but couldnt, will try again today or tomorrow as you rightly said the signs weren't clear.



This post has been edited by Pavy: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 14:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 14:47
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Hoping to get some feedback/comments before I submit this appeal, thanks in advance, appreciate your time and effort.


As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:
1. No keeper liability
2. BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines
3. No evidence of period parked
4. No landowner authority
5. Misuse of parking to maximise penalties
6. Lack of signage- unclear signage
7. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate
8. Failure to comply with the data protection
9. The Signs Fail to Transparently


1. No keeper Liability
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)— (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 ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’
It is my understanding that for an operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The Driver of the vehicle has not been identified and the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012 (no windscreen ticket was issued), specifically the following passage:

“2) The notice must – f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”

If ECP should try to suggest that there is any method out with the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

The Notice to Keeper that was received (Parking Charge Number XXXX dated 26th June 2018) omits such information. I have included in my POPLA submission the two pages of the notice, which confirms that such text is absent.

Evidently, the operator has withheld from me (as the registered keeper) the required details of my liabilities in the event that the driver is not identified. This might be an omission on the part of the operator or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but regardless, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA 2012 (section 9). As this operator has evidently failed to serve a compliant 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 elaborated.

2. BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The NtK in question contains two close-up license plate images. The time and date stamp inserted into above (but not part of) the images. The images do not show the vehicle parked in the carpark in an unauthorised way. Thus I require confirmation of the vehicle parked in an unauthorised way.
I Invite ECP to produce evidence of the original (un-cropped) images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than simply entering and exiting the car park.
Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require ECP to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

3. No evidence of period parked- doesn’t meet POFA 2012 requirements
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked.
PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

ECP’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. At no stage does ECP explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012. ECP uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park.

It is not in the gift of ECP to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ECP are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require ECP to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK, NOT merely evidence of entering and exiting, which does NOT specifically identify period of parking.

4. No landowner authority
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an un-redacted 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 Code of Practice) 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).
Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.

5. Misuse of parking to maximise penalties
ANPR at the Waters edge car park allows guest to park for free up to 2 hours upon registering their full and correct vehicle registration via the console in the pub. Their system is clearly flawed and designed to entrap motorists so they can maximise the number of parking charges issued. ANPR system can be used to detect vehicle entry and exit however who determines if the driver of the vehicle is guest of water edge pub. There is no scanning but manual input of registration number in at the bar to get up to 2 hours free parking mean human error. Clearly the pub is known to run the scam of ripping public on parking charges. The manager holds no responsibility on human error. It should be noted that the driver on that day had used waters edge and technically is a guest but pub staff seem to be rude and unhelpful. The pub claims they are aware of the parking system yet fail to ensure the correct application of the process to ensure PCN is issued. A proper system would only allow a registration to be entered if the ANPR system recognises that it [is] in the car park. This is an unfair business practice, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs).


6. Lack of signage- unclear signage
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:
“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix B) states:
“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”
“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material”
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by:
(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
(b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

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:

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 (below) as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

This can be compared with signage in the water’s edge car park below

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 were not clear, obscured and hidden in some areas and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one

There are no signs that can be read from the car for disabled people as clearly stated in the code of conduct Clause 18.9 and 28.8 - So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.
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 in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs).
Before entering into a contract, the terms and conditions should be available and clear. Your T's & C's are placed so high up on poles it is impossible to agree to them let alone read them.
“Clause 13.1 and 30.1 - If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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”

7. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate

The ECP evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. To capture a vehicle entering the water’s edge car park and actually crossing the boundary into the land in question, it would appear that the only conceivable location for a camera would be directly across the road from the entrance therefore outside the car park and taken from public land.
In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they in fact offered a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences. i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the rear number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that ECP produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ECP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. 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 the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put ECP to strict proof to the contrary.

8. 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
BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:
“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
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:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:
“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:
• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”
“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.”
“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”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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 ECP 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 ECP must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it. It therefore follows that I require ECP 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”.

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

“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: • 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;”
“7.6 Privacy Notices
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.
One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”
ECP has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, ECP 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. 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.

9. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what The ANPR Data will be used for
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
ECP’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signs failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
There is no information indicates that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.
Attached image came in the rejection letter that contains a notice describing the use of cameras and simply states:
“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry and exit at all times including bank holidays”
This in no way indicates how your data is stored, captured and then used to obtain information from the DVLA in order to raise a PCN.

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 07:46
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Any critique before I send this appeal?

This post has been edited by Pavy: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 07:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 21:04
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
From: bedfordshire
Member No.: 90,851



I have loads of pictures to save you going there if you want some just PM me and I am happy to send.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:25
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



anyone got anything to add or delete? Im looking to get some feedback before I submit
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:37
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Law made an offer...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 15:08
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:37) *
Law made an offer...


I sent a private message, to Law, awaiting reply. but apart from signage have I got the other defense right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 15:24
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Appeal, not defence
Defence has a "c" in it

It looks ok. Frankly given youve copied and pasted from anotehr appeal, you could just tell us what bits youve changed to save us trawling over the same ground .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 15:48
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 16:24) *
Appeal, not defence
Defence has a "c" in it

It looks ok. Frankly given youve copied and pasted from anotehr appeal, you could just tell us what bits youve changed to save us trawling over the same ground .


Must be typo(auto correct). I understand most of the points have been discussed here but I posted complete draft as suggested here.
I've underlined the paragraph relevant to my case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 08:20
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Most of it is a rant, and needs redoing - for example "to ensure PCN" should be "to ensure a PCN is not issued"
Reword to point out that the staff have a duty of care to ensure patrons of the Pub are made aware of the parking conditions, and failed to do so on that occasion. In addition, there is no reason the system cannot be linked to the ANPR system, so that only VRMs logged as being in the car park can be registered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 09:04
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



@ nosferatu1001

ANPR cameras in the Waters Edge car parks have fundamental flaws that make it unfit for purpose. Waters edge car park allows guest to park for free up to 2 hours upon registering their full and correct vehicle registration via the console in the pub. These consoles are manually operated, the way these companies choose to ‘manage’ the car parks (typically for free using ANPR cameras and make money by issuing tickets).
The Appellant was technically the guest, but the staff who have a duty of care to ensure patrons of the pub are made aware of the parking conditions, failed to do so. In addition, there is no reason the system cannot be linked to the ANPR system, so that only VRMs logged as being in the car park can be registered. This is an unfair business practice, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs).

I was going to appeal this morning and found out the POPLA appeal is not straight forward as initial appeal process.
Step 1 - grounds of Appeals, can I select more than one reason ? I was not improperly parked and other
Step 2 - Appeal Details, this only talks about signage

I know most of POPLA appeals are lengthy, wonder how these are done? Cant find any thread on this, any direction appreciated

This post has been edited by Pavy: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 09:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 09:05
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Select "other"
Appeal gronds - please see appeal attached with filename...

Attahc your appeal as a PDF.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 09:18
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 10:05) *
Select "other"
Appeal gronds - please see appeal attached with filename...

Attahc your appeal as a PDF.



Appeal submitted, Thanks for your help 'Nosferatu1001'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:47
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Euro Car Parks has now uploaded its evidence. attached below

This location is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which takes a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, these pictures are timed and therefore the duration of the stay can be calculated. All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced. After requesting vehicle keeper details from the DVLA, a Notice to keeper is sent to the keepers of the vehicles on this list. As a consequence at ANPR locations there will be no PCN issued to the windscreen neither will there be photographic evidence of the windscreen supplied in operator evidence packs.

Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXX was issued to vehicle for breach of terms and conditions D: Your vehicle was not authorised to park at the M&B - The Water’s Edge - Ruislip car park. This car park operates a 24 hour ANPR + Authorised vehicles only.

XX has appealed to POPLA stating the following:
 No keeper liability
 BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
 No evidence of period parked
 No landowner authority
 Lack of signage- unclear signage
 The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate

Euro Car Parks would like to respond to the points raised with the following

1. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) code of practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the driver’s responsibility to read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the terms and conditions as stated. Euro Car Parks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant remained at the site for 52 minutes (Figure 1)
2. The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, all drivers are required to adhere to the terms and conditions on site. (Figure 2)
3. Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the driver’s responsibility to read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the rules and regulations as
stated.
4. Euro Car Parks can confirm that the notice has been issued under contract law – the signage on site is clear and when parking on private land it is the responsibility of the driver to read aforementioned signage and park in accordance with the T&CS displayed.
5. Please see Figure 3 where I can confirm that ECP’s NTK are POFA compliant
6. Figure 4 is the agreement between Mitchells & Butlers and ECP.
7. According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before
enforcement action is taken. 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.
8. Any form of parking ticket or ‘notice’ is issued under the law ‘of trespass and Contract Law’. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.
9. The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges are that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms − for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable
10. With regards to the reference to “Pre-Estimate of Loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999.” Please be advised that the Supreme Court has made judgement (04/11/15) that clearly sets out the issue of parking charge notices on private land (law of contract applies) and in particular pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge notice is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest when the driver failed to adhere to the terms and conditions and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
- It’s the driver’s responsibility to check the signage prior to leaving the vehicle on site.
- Contract Law Applies
11. Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and UK Serviceable address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.
12. Figure 5 is the exemption list on the day in question. I can confirm that the vehicle was not authorised to park in M&B - The Water's Edge – Ruislip

By parking on site XX has accepted the terms and conditions as displayed on the signage and a contract is in place between XXX and ECP that has been breached by XXX by failing to register the vehicle registration via console and therefore was not authorised to park on the day in question. The signage on site is clear and as the driver it is the driver’s responsibility to check and adhere to the terms of parking. XXX was parked at the car park for 52 minutes without registering their vehicle registration with the pub.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 14:13
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Under POFA 2012, if the keeper didnt give the details of driver, can ECP pursue the registered Keeper?

The photographs they have provided as evidence has the same picture that I had uploaded but different perspective
Figure 1: image of car entering and leaving with inserted date and time details
Figure 2: large image of terms & conditions
Figure 3 : sample of how they have complied to POFA wording
Figure 4 and 5 attached below.










Do the operator ECP contest unless they think they could win the case?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 10:40
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



That's entirely the point of the keepe liabiloty part of pofa!

But only if they comply with all respects of para 8 or 9, and if a lease or hire is involved then 14aa well

You need to go through and rebut anything that they got wrong, that they omit to counter, and check ALL evidence - right car, right car park, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 15:38
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 11:40) *
That's entirely the point of the keepe liabiloty part of pofa!

But only if they comply with all respects of para 8 or 9, and if a lease or hire is involved then 14aa well

You need to go through and rebut anything that they got wrong, that they omit to counter, and check ALL evidence - right car, right car park, etc.



@ nosferatu1001, would you mind checking if ECP has met the POFA compliance? after reading multiple times the operator's evidence I feel they have worded rightly
i.e. for ANPR tickets- Car details, land, period, advise that the driver is liable if not paid in full, advised the keeper if driver not known the parking charges after 28 days.
discount period and Date of the notice. Im denying their claim on signs being clear but POFA would be worth the appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 18:33
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,037
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



John Dull/Bull does not seem to be a M&B director

The following are directors of the Company:

Bob Ivell (Chairman)
Ron Robson* (Deputy Chairman)
Phil Urban (Chief Executive)
Tim Jones (Finance Director)
Stewart Gilliland* (Senior Independent Director)
Keith Browne*
Dave Coplin*
Eddie Irwin*
Josh Levy*
Colin Rutherford*
Imelda Walsh*

We had one contract thrown out as the sig was not one of a director.

This post has been edited by kommando: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 18:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 23rd September 2018 - 09:22
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.