PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ECP PCN Advice, ECP PCN Letter / appeal
Snout
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 13:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,404



Hi, thank you in advance for taking a look at this. I hope to get some useful & constructive feedback on the below letter I've cobbled together for a PCN that has arrived. I've also attached / linked to the signage and the PCN letter.



Firstly, as keeper of the vehicle, I would like to pass this communication to xxxxx who will act on my behalf.

With reference to your Parking Charge Notification xxxxxx, xxxxxx I believe it was incorrectly issued. Your invitation for the driver to be named is respectfully declined, which I understand is not required of the keeper. The parking charge notice issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd. is appealed on the following grounds and should be cancelled.

1. Frustration of Contract / Equality
2. Grace Period / ANPR
3. Photographs / ANPR
4. Additional Information

1. Frustration of contract / Equality

One passenger, suffers from terminal cancer. On the day in question this elderly female, became short winded, tired and found it very difficult to continue walking. It was necessary to stop for some time which caused the overstay. This person is in possession of a blue badge for her condition which was clearly displayed in the vehicle. A 3rd party witness in addition to the passengers in the vehicle at the time are available to provide written witness statements if necessary. In addition to the Equality Act 2010 where it states “reasonable adjustments” for those needing it, I would also urge you to consider that of the recommendation of time to read signage (BPA CoP), plus the fact there was also a baby (and equipment (pram, etc) that also needed to be loaded and unloaded.

2. Grace period / ANPR Equipment

Whilst effective at monitoring the time between observations of registration plates, ANPR is flawed for monitoring the length of time a car was parked. The ANPR cameras are parked at the entrance and exit of the car park, recording when a car passed it. However, the time between the two photographs would be the time parked, PLUS the time looking for a space, time reading the signage and the time leaving the car park. In busy car parks, of which this is, this adds up to quite a period of time and this vehicle spent quite a while searching for a suitable bay and waiting to exit onto the road. The payment transaction was at 11:14am yet you base the PCN on an entry time of 11:06am which contradicts the BPA CoP (see #1). You are also inconsistent with the use of the word ‘parking’ which is misleading. An example of such is on the PCN itself “the P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking”.

It is misleading to assume entry and exit. A person could understand this to be entry and exit of the parking bay to which they rent for the duration. Which makes sense as driving around the car park and failing to find a suitable space would not breach the T&C’s. It is also questionable to assume at what point the exit is positioned and if other vehicles temporarily preventing exit are considered. In order to meet the transparency requirement, the signage should state not only the timing is from the point of entry and exit to the car park but identify where the car park / ‘parking’ boundary is. If that is not done, how could any motorist have reasonably known?

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 synchronized with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. Having said that, the parking charge notice issued (and one used for judgement) is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (no indication of car park shown within the photographic images).

3. Photographs / ANPR

No evidence of period parked. The parking charge notice clearly states the did not cover the date and time of parking. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. 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. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods. These are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within. An alleged 20 minutes overstay does not meet the code of practice. Additionally, there is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for the time stated.

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states in section 20.5a that photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. The photographs you have provided on the Parking Charge Notice, and the ones used for judgement in this case may have been digitally altered to show only the registration plate, they also have no time stamp. Nor do they make any reference to the carpark.

In addition to showing the maintenance records, it is requested for ECP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. It is suggested 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 any time stamp (no stamp provided on your evidence) 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, it is put to ECP to strict proof to the contrary.

4. Additional Information

ECP’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park is questioned.

Please supply evidence that the landowner is a member of the AOS and meets all the compliance conditions.

If you reject the challenge and insist on taking the matter further then this will also be appealed to POPLA (therefore, please provide a POPLA Code) where you will be expected to provide your full contract with the landowner. You should be informed that a claim for expenses from you may be issued. The expenses that may be claimed are not exhaustive but may include the cost of man hours, stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, administration fees, etc. By continuing to pursue the keeper you agree to pay these costs when the keeper prevails.

Any communication that does not either confirm cancellation or include a POPLA verification code/IAS appeal information will be reported to the BPA/IPC as a breach of their Code of Practice - the BPA recently issued guidance to all members to remind them of this fact. Such communication may also be deemed harassment and pursued accordingly.

As stated in your Parking Charge Notice, this appeal and associated costs / dates will now place on hold.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 52)
Advertisement
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 13:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 08:15
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You need to be happy with it yourself. THeres only so far we can do with these POPLA appeals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snout
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 10:00
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,404



Hi... I am reasonably happy with it. I posted the popla appeal letter but havent had any comments on it. Had stuff relating to the privacy thing but not my letter for popla. I just want an idea if i got it right or if im way off mark.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 11:23
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,381
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Why did the registered keeper themselves not simply send the SAR?

Or a person doing it 'in their name' (i.e. in the name of the rk, even if the rk isn't up to it themselves?). None of this third party nonsense.


Anyway I have made amendments to almost all the points, try this (I removed the NTK point as it wasn't right, and the point about reliability of ANPR cameras which POPLA don't care about/believe/understand:


QUOTE (Snout @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 16:16) *
POPLA Verification Code:
XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration:
XXXXXXX



I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. Equality Act 2010 - POPLA in the first instance, please refer this case back to the operator as promised in your Annual Report 2017.
2. No contravention of the two terms on the bottom of the sign that could give rise to £100 parking charge.
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. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
5. 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.
6. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
7. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and ICO Code of Practice rules for ANPR and Surveillance Cameras


1. Equality Act - POPLA in the first instance, please refer this case back to the operator who failed to deal with the appeal properly

One passenger suffers from terminal cancer which adversely affects her stamina and mobility.

On the day in question this elderly female became short winded, extremely tired and found it impossible to continue walking. It was necessary to stop for some time which delayed the return to vehicle. This person is in possession of a blue badge for her condition which was clearly displayed in the vehicle, not that a remote ANPR system actually considers this need:

COPY OF BLUE BADGE SCAN HERE

This is not merely mitigating circumstances, it is a fact of disability law that the passenger is legally allowed more free parking time than an able bodied person. While ECP state “no concessions for disabled drivers” on their signs, this is in fact illegal and breaches the Equality Act 2010 (the EA) where it creates a legal duty upon all consumer-facing service providers to make “reasonable adjustments” for those needing such a provision.

Merely painting a few disabled bays does not comply; all rigid rules and policies must be open to adjustment, including time limits.

There is also no excuse to be heard from an operator if they say: ''it's not discrimination because we didn't know about the passenger's medical condition and our signs say the same parking time for all''. As pointed out, that's illegal anyway but there is no justification to say the operator 'did not know' about an individual's disability. The EA sets out illegal conduct described as 'indirect discrimination' and in a car park setting, this involves a failure to consider the (unknown, but certain to exist) needs of the disabled population 'at large'.

Policies must be adjusted, more time must be offered for those people with 'protected characteristics' and this passenger certainly qualifies.

The operator is guilty of indirect discrimination at the point of issuing the PCN, and has compounded this by then failing to consider the appeal made in May, at which point they 'knew or should have known' (had they read the first appeal) about the passenger's eligibility for a reasonable adjustment of time, which is the operator's legal duty and is not optional.

POPLA will notice that the operator failed to address (at all) the question of the disability and their duty to make a reasonable adjustment, when sending their template reply pretending that an extra 20 minutes costs a blanket charge of £100. Whilst that might be arguable regarding able bodied people, it is not legal or arguable when the operator knew of the disability at the point of appeal. A trader must not charge a disabled person for the time taken to undertake daily tasks, and the BPA CoP reminds operators of their legal duties.

In the POPLA Annual Report 2017, one of the things John Gallagher assured readers that POPLA learned from ISPA, was that if a parking firm has failed to address a significant circumstance mentioned in the first appeal, POPLA 'WILL' in the first instance, refer the case back to the parking firm encouraging them to consider the disability properly and cancel the PCN.

POPLA, please do that first.

I would also urge you to consider Wake Smith Solicitors v Norwich City Council:

http://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-c...-badge-holders/

...where Norwich City Council were forced to change their disabled policy in line with current legislation as detailed in the Equality Act 2010 and had to allow disabled people more allowed parking time - at no expense for the adjustment. A parking firm is no different in this respect from a Council. it is clear from that legal victory, that where there is a tariff allowing parking for the able bodied population of say, one hour, this must be extended for a disabled person with mobility & stamina/respiratory problems. The EA duty upon the landowner, retail and parking firm alike will mean the parking firm must allows, say, two hours (or an extra hour overall, like Norwich Council had to).

An operator cannot be heard to argue that 'contract' can overrule statute law. POPLA cannot allow a contractual term that breaks the law.

In addition, please consider the time needed at the start, before even finding a space, to arrive, drive round looking for a suitable parking bay allowing access for a disabled person and child, then prepare to get everyone (including the disabled person and a baby) safely out of the car, get to the pay station, queue behind others, then read the signage, decide to accept / decline T&C’s, and make payment. There was also the fact there was also a baby so there was equipment (pram, etc.) that also needed to be unloaded and (once we got back to the car) repeat this loading and strapping in of child and disabled person, before leaving slowly through a very busy and narrow car park, past pedestrians and manoeuvring vehicles.

The BPA CoP requires a grace period at the start to allow more time to get to the machine, and mentions disabled people specifically:

16 Disabled motorists
16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to
the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove
barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely
to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance
or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It
also could include lowered payment machines and other ways
to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone.
You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled
people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.


It is clearly perfectly reasonable that the party in question, given the facts of their needs and the car park itself, were perfectly reasonable to take a mere 8 minutes from arrival to obtaining the PDT from the machine, and perfectly reasonable that the end grace period needed was a mere 12 minutes even in spite of the disability and difficulties described.

Just two minutes over the minimum that operators must allow for able bodied people, is not a contravention by any reasonable interpretation. The BPA agrees:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-...s-grace-periods

''Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. 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,” he explains.

“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.”
''




2. No contravention of the two terms on the bottom of the sign that could give rise to £100 parking charge.

The two contraventions listed under the words ''Failure to comply with the following will result in a £100 PCN...'' are nothing to do with any overstay - i.e. the sign doesn't create a contravention by overstaying. The driver did pay at the machine, the driver did display a valid ticket and the driver did park within the bay lines. There was no contravention of the terms as drafted.




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


As a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.
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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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.

This is the only evidence supplied to me as keeper appellant by Euro Car Parks, an image purporting to be of a notice within the plot of land in question. The image is not date stamped or independently verified for its authenticity. Please note that there is no visible indication of the liability of any party, least of all the registered keeper of any vehicle:

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 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 reasonable presumption 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

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.''



4. 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 for disabled people, which under the EA, must be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP. Ten minutes is not enough for disabled patrons and it is contended that the landowner must have discussed and addressed the issue of disability before allowing this operator to commence any rigid rules of parking enforcement and time allowed for the tariff.

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




5. 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

On the signage, the two contraventions listed under the words:

''Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 PCN (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue)'' are nothing to do with any overstay which makes the signage ambiguous. 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, where there was no quantifiable tariff and no disabled passenger with statutory rights.

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.

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, there is one sign indicating a tariff (at the pay station) and the hourly rate is the only salient figure. The wording is 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 in a busy car park such as the one in question.

At the disabled bays there are no visible signs that tell drivers/passengers about £100 charge. This is a BPA CoP breach of paragraph 18.9:

''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.''

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this carpark 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 judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

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.




6. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.


Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) 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 CoP 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.

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver 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. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside the car park.

It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.
In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: 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.

and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park.

A camera icon suggests merely that CCTV is in operation for security within the car park, and in fact the signs say the site is patrolled, so no driver would have any idea that ANPR was being used to calculate total stay time and that the 'expiry' time on the PDT was redundant. Anyone returning to a car in time, going by the ticket, would consider they had complied with the rules of this car park, even if they then had to spend minutes sorting out and loading/strapping the baby, buggy, and the needs of the disabled passenger, then carefully driving out.




7. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and ICO Code of Practice rules for ANPR and Surveillance Cameras

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 such rules, 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 evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

ii) 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, disabled people and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and

iii) 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

iv) Lack of the Privacy Notice required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access. 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.

The BPA CoP says at paragraph 21.4:

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.


This operator has ignored the surveillance camera rules and if they disagree they are put to strict proof of (i) to (iv) above.


It is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snout
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 12:27
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,404



thank you, that reads well. Is it worth mentioning they didn't keep to the data protection act? An email was sent to them and the data protection team using the same email at the same time, the 'info' team replied with details mentioned previously, but the 'data protection' team replied a bit later with a template response saying a SAR was required. I since emailed the DP people to complain but they didn't respond.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 00:03
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,381
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



The final point already covers that. I changed it from your version that was based on an old one that POPLA don;t care about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snout
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 20:49
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,404



Hi... which application do i select on the POPLA site? Is it the 'i was not improperly parked' or 'other' appeal? It does say that 'other' is less likely to be successful~!

Also, just a comment on your edited letter... 6 para 3. The sign says 'we are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry and exit'. But the letter says 'its not clear that the cameras...' should i leave that bit in or remove?
Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 22:38
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,381
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



OTHER

And yes I would remove that part, given what the sign says, good spot!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:02
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The text for "other" was written before they had heard a single appeal

Its a complete lie.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snout
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 21:17
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,404



Hi... how long do ECP have to respond to Popla after i appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 23:37
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,381
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I thought that was in the POPLA FAQs on their website?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snout
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 07:07
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,404



Unless it's buried deep within... I can't find it anywhere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 23:20
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



28 days from memory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snout
post Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 14:41
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,404



Note to all that helped particularly schoolrunmum & nosferatu1001


Dear xxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxx

Euro Car Parks have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Thursday, 13th December 2018 - 23:44
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.