Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ECP Shell, Gatwick North
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
cabbyman
PCN received.

Date of incident: 1/7/16

Date of issue of PCN: 1/7/16

Letter Date: 11/7/16

Date received: 15/7/16

I'll check all the PoFA requirements later, but thought I might let you all have a go at a strategy, maybe we can make it fun if it's not TOO risky.

ManxRed
Derren Brown will win this if he posts on here. biggrin.gif
freddy1
date of incident = day 0

letter received 15/7 which is 14 days after incident
cabbyman
I've checked PoFA.

From what I can see, it fails at Para 9 (2) (b) in that it only mentions period of stay, not of parking. I understand from the driver that it was not possible to find a parking space immediately upon entering the site and, in fact, the vehicle entered, left and re-entered the site in a matter of minutes in order to try to find a space.

Para 9 (4) (b) fails, I think, as detailed in the original post.

It's a bog standard ECP NtK. I can scan and copy later, if it is desirable.
cabbyman
Here is the offending missive:





There is another LGW run next week so it may be possible to get pics of the signs.
cabbyman
The pics that were taken today:











cabbyman
They're going to reject anyway, but does this, cribbed from Dennis Basher, look OK:

Dear Sirs,

Parking Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [AA11ABC]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Euro Car Parks Ltd (“ECP”) as a Notice to Keeper. I confirm that I am the keeper of this vehicle for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally dispute the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper. However, there are a number of reasons why ECP’s Notice to Keeper did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 in particular.

I also note that the signage at the site does not comply with the requirements of the BPA and is insufficient for it's intended purpose as per Beavis v Parking Eye.

ECP has now forfeited its right to claim keeper liability. Therefore please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge and that my details have been removed from your system as you no longer have any need to hold them.

Love and kisses.


Is there any point in delaying sending it?
nosferatu1001
No reason to delay. Exact a popla code and likely no response to the requirement to remove details.

Make it a section 10 notice - they're required to respond to that.
cabbyman
Amendment: ECP has now forfeited it's right to claim keeper liability and such further pursuance is liable to cause unwarranted and substantial damage and distress to the registered keeper. Therefore please confirm that you have now cancelled this charge and that my details have been removed from your system as you no longer have any need to hold them. This instruction constitutes a notice of objection to processing under section 10 of the Data Processing Act 1998.

I don't know if Gan's around and would like to give me one of his succinct 'tie 'em up in knots' letters?
cabbyman
Is advertisement consent one for me to research for future use on this or is it a red herring at this site?
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 20 Jul 2016 - 07:09) *
Is advertisement consent one for me to research for future use on this or is it a red herring at this site?

Never seen a POPLA case won on advertising consent.

Normally people make a complaint about it to the local council merely to drop a PPC in it. And why not?! Rude not to!
cabbyman
Before I send the letter, I haven't called it an 'appeal' or specifically asked for a POPLA code. Should I?

Are they required to treat any 'challenge,' like mine above, as an appeal and issue a code? By my not reminding them, there is a greater chance that they may screw up. But, am I leaving them with unnecessary wriggle room?
nosferatu1001
Youre not appealing them. Youre telling them to go chase the driver, or cancel. Either way they must remove your details.
Jo Carn
Look at the "ticket" again.
It has a date of issue. Not good enough.
The "ticket" is bound by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Look at Section 7 subsection 2 clause e or f (can't remember off the top of my head).
The "ticket" must have the date AND time it is issued.
The ticket is non compliant with PoFA and therefore not enforceable.

Just tell them that it is non compliant with Section 7 but don't tip them off as to which bit.
cabbyman
The following was sent today, online and duplicated by 2nd class post:

Appeals,
ECP,
30 Dorset Square,
London,
NW1 6QJ

19th July 2016.

Dear Sirs,

Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxxx: Vehicle Registration xxxxxx
I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Euro Car Parks Ltd (“ECP”) as a Notice to Keeper. I confirm that I am the keeper of this vehicle for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally dispute the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper. However, there are a number of reasons why ECP’s Notice to Keeper did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 in particular.

I also note that the signage at the site does not comply with the requirements of the BPA and is insufficient for its intended purpose as per Beavis v Parking Eye.

ECP has now forfeited its right to claim keeper liability and such further pursuance is liable to cause unwarranted and substantial damage and distress to the registered keeper. . Therefore please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge and that my details have been removed from your system as you no longer have any need to hold them. This instruction constitutes a notice of objection to processing under section 10 of the Data Processing Act 1998.

Yours faithfully,



I'll let you know what happens next. Any guesses?????????? biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif
nosferatu1001
Well if they dont explicitly deal with the section 10 notice, within 21 days, you need to raise a complaint smile.gif
cabbyman
QUOTE (Jo Carn @ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 - 13:59) *
Look at the "ticket" again.
It has a date of issue. Not good enough.
The "ticket" is bound by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Look at Section 7 subsection 2 clause e or f (can't remember off the top of my head).
The "ticket" must have the date AND time it is issued.
The ticket is non compliant with PoFA and therefore not enforceable.

Just tell them that it is non compliant with Section 7 but don't tip them off as to which bit.


Para 7 doesn't apply. It was ANPR, not a windscreen ticket.


A laughable quick E mail response:

Dear Customer

This is an automatic response to confirm receipt of your email communication.

Please read the following important information
• Appeals received with full and concise information will ensure that your parking charge notice is placed on hold
• The appeals procedure can take up to 35 days from receipt to process and you will be informed in writing ONLY to the address provided (not email)
• If you have not supplied any of the following information we cannot process your appeal
o Full Name
o Full Postal Address
o Parking Charge Notice Number
o Vehicle Registration Mark


If you fail to supply the correct and complete information your parking charge notice will not be placed on hold, the prompt payment discount will be affected and if the parking charge notice remains unpaid it may be passed to a debt collection company.

Thanking you in advance

Regards

Customer Services


1) I am NOT a customer of ECP!

2) 35 days will be 14 days after a complaint has gone to ICO.

3) I couldn't give a toss whether it is paced on hold, the discount is affected or it is passed to a debt collection agency. You ain't gettin' any o'my 'ard-earned!!!

4) I doubt very much if 'customer services' carries out the traditional CS functions!!!

Oh what fun these muppets are!
nigelbb
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 - 14:32) *
4) I doubt very much if 'customer services' carries out the traditional CS functions!!!

In the context of PPCs Customer Service has the same sense as a bull servicing a cow.
cabbyman
I have been reading through PE v Beavis to try to find the comments of their Lordships that distinguish the size of the font for the '£85' on PEs' signs. Having been through all 316 paragraphs, it refused to reveal itself to me.

My thoughts are that ECP's signage has the charge in a sentence that it in a font that is only the third in size on the sign, with only one font being smaller. In the event of my having to go to POPLA to kill this, I would like to distinguish ECPs' signs from those of PE, with the help of the Supreme Court.

Can anybody help, please?
nosferatu1001
Just stare they are not "unusually prominent" unlike the case in Beavis. Make them prove compliance.
cabbyman
Good point, Nosferatu. Thanks.

So, I still may need to find it for the rebuttal to their POPLA submissions?
nosferatu1001
I thought SRM on MSE (Coupon Mad) had cited it enoughb times. Maybe a directed google search for "unusually prominent"

cabbyman
I have found some wording here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t106518.html

Hopefully, I won't need to bother with POPLA.............Some hope!!!

So, just getting my ducks in a line before I start shooting.

Thanks Nosferatu. biggrin.gif
cabbyman
More than 21 days have passed since the sec 10 notice with no response. How should I word the ICO complaint?
SchoolRunMum
https://ico.org.uk/concerns/handling/

https://informationrightsandwrongs.com/2014...curate-records/

You can apply to the court but as you are at appeal stage, I would wait for your POPLA code.


Edited as I see you are at an early stage, not what I thought!
cabbyman
Thanks SRM.

I will look at all your suggested sources. I really must join MSE properly!

Just to clarify, I am at initial challenge stage with ECP. Still awaiting their rejection before POPLA.
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE
I really must join MSE properly!


Ahem...me too!
freddy1
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 15 Aug 2016 - 23:33) *
QUOTE
I really must join MSE properly!


Ahem...me too!

biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
cabbyman
Today, I have received the missive shown below.

According to the code checker, the POPLA code was issued 2 days before the date on the letter and 6 days before I received it.





cabbyman
My first POPLA draft, based on an appeal we have sent against another company. Any thoughts, please?

Dear Sirs,

POPLA Verification Code
Vehicle Registration Number
PCN Reference
Issued by Euro Car Parks Limited (ECP)

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice you issued against it. 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) Lack of signage- unclear signage
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No keeper Liability - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012, was served too late and no 'Notice to Driver' was served whilst the car was stationary.

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below the requirements for a 'Notice to Driver' as set out in Schedule 4 which clearly requires either:

- Under paras 7 & 8: a windscreen PCN (in person, issued on the car before it leaves the site) followed by a postal 'Notice to Keeper' served no sooner than 29 days later,

OR

- Under paragraph 9: a compliant postal 'Notice to Keeper' to be served within 14 days of the event.

Neither of these two mandatory routes were followed in this case. Paragraph 7 states:

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given—

(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b)while the vehicle is stationary,

by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


No such Notice to Driver was served. Instead, a hybrid document the operator called a 'PCN' was posted. This neither matched the mandatory requirements of paragraph 7 as a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was posted, not served whilst the vehicle was stationary) nor does it meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

It is clear that - notwithstanding the incorrect and missing statutory wording for a NTK - the operator does not in any event, intend this to be taken to be a NTK because a month later they then served another postal document, this one WAS called 'Notice to Keeper'. However, as it arrived so late it is too late for keeper liability because in the absence of any windscreen PCN, any NTK must arrive by day 14 after the parking event. The late timing and non-compliant wording of this NTK is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...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''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

In any case, as explained above, the document described as a 'NTK' arrived a month too late - as if it was one which followed a windscreen PCN - yet this operator has failed to apply any windscreen Notice to Driver. Consequently, ECP has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If ECP should try to suggest that there is any method outwith 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

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.”

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; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

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 parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They do they clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite ECP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

3) No evidence of period parked. The NtK clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of a 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 25 minutes overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 2 hours 25 minutes.

4)No landowner Authority:

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

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put ECP to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question ECP’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that ECP is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that ECP are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“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.''

I put ECP to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 2 hours in a car park.
I require ECP to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
5) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst manoeuvring into the car park from St Johns Road and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligible.



The BPA Code of Practice states that- “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. “

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. I put ECP to strict proof on this point. As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car park, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore, as stated, a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...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.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.




6) 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 St Johns Road 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.



I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

Yours,

Registered Keeper.
SchoolRunMum
Yep, I can't add more to that and it includes the recent adjustment made on another ECP thread, to point out that a postal PCN followed a month later by a NTK, fails to meet either para 8 or para 9 of Schedule 4. It also includes 7.3 of the BPA CoP which calls for more evidence than merely a witness statement, so the landowner authority argument is strong too.

I'd send that if no-one else adds anything.
cabbyman
Thanks, SRM. I need to make a couple of global changes to reflect the ECP incident rather than any other. Oops!

Also, am I relying too heavily on the exact wording of PoFA in some instances, eg, Para 9(2)(b) where the wording on the original PCN is included, to a degree.

I have only had the PCN and then a rejection letter. Does the fact that the original PCN arrived 15 days after the parking event (rather than the month shown in the draft! Another change I need to do) alter the basis of the submission about Para 7 & 9?


cabbyman
I'm still trying to get my head around the NtD/PCN/NtK terminology in Ground 1 of my draft.

As you will see from post #5, the first document I received was a PCN. This I appealed and received the refusal in post #29. At no stage have I received any document entitled 'Notice to Driver' or 'Notice to Keeper.'

I understand the direction that Ground 1 is headed in terms of is it a late PCN (Just by one day...maybe!) or is it an early NtK following service of a NtD, but I am struggling to word it in the right way to get the salient points across.

SRM, as it is your script, I wonder if you might be kind enough to reword it in such a way that it gets to the nub of your argument but takes account of the paperwork that I have received? I would be most grateful if you would help me to see the wood for the trees.

Many thanks.
SatNavSam
Quote:
"As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice you issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:"
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE
This I appealed and received the refusal in post #29. At no stage have I received any document entitled 'Notice to Driver' or 'Notice to Keeper.'


Oh, normally ECP send a PCN then a month later, a NTK. Maybe they've started to put it right. I think you will therefore just need to remove anything talking about receiving a Notice to Keeper, and the bit that says they can't have intended the PCN to be the NTK because later, a document headed 'NTK' arrived.

So cross out all that, then double check that the PCN you did receive, actually does not comply where you say it doesn't.
Stevedee
Hi, Long time lurker here but just joined. Below purely on times in defense and not technical points to help defense.

From your defense in point 3 you have
QUOTE
There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 2 hours 25 minutes.
From the initial PCN it was only 44 minutes I think, (20 minutes grace and 24 alleged 'overstay').

Also in point 4 it is same -
QUOTE
This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 2 hours in a car park.

Assuming that should be twenty minutes.
cabbyman
Many thanks all.

Making the adjustments.

Any other suggestions gratefully received. I won't be sending it until week commencing 5th September.
cabbyman
OK. I think the rest of it is ready to go. However, point #1 is still giving me cause for concern. I have made some amendments to it but I am getting confused over which elements need to be in and which need to be out. Would someone please have a go at it for me? Many thanks.

1) No keeper Liability - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012, was served too late and no 'Notice to Driver' was served whilst the car was stationary.

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below the requirements for a 'Notice to Driver' as set out in Schedule 4 which clearly requires either:

- Under paras 7 & 8: a windscreen PCN (in person, issued on the car before it leaves the site) followed by a postal 'Notice to Keeper' served no sooner than 29 days later,

OR

- Under paragraph 9: a compliant postal 'Notice to Keeper' to be served within 14 days of the event.

Neither of these two mandatory routes were followed in this case. Paragraph 7 states:

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given—

(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b)while the vehicle is stationary,

by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


No such Notice to Driver was served. Instead, a hybrid document the operator called a 'PCN' was posted. This neither matched the mandatory requirements of paragraph 7 as a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was posted, not served whilst the vehicle was stationary) nor does it meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

Any PCN/NTK must arrive by day 14 after the parking event. The late timing and non-compliant wording of this NTK is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...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''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

In any case, as explained above, the document described as a 'NTK' arrived too late - as if it was one which followed a windscreen PCN - yet this operator has failed to apply any windscreen Notice to Driver. Consequently, ECP has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If ECP should try to suggest that there is any method outwith 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

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.”

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; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

cabbyman
I wonder if anyone is able to help with the above, please?

I am away for a week but would like to get it all finalised when I return next week.

I would be most appreciative of any help with rewording my point #1 shown above.

Many thanks.
4consumerrights
A lot of unnecessary waffle in the appeal regarding the compliance with POFA

ECP stated they used ANPR and therefore this comes under section 9 of POFA.

Nothing to do with 'hybrid' PCN etc.
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE
As you will see from post #5, the first document I received was a PCN. This I appealed and received the refusal in post #29. At no stage have I received any document entitled 'Notice to Driver' or 'Notice to Keeper.'

If you only received the postal PCN - and not a 'Notice to Keeper' as well, a month later - then you can only compare that PCN to para 9 of the POFA. So, does that PCN omit all the wording that version says it does? I think not, from one I saw on another thread. You will need to compare the wording.

And you can't say this if there was no 'NTK' that followed the PCN:

QUOTE
In any case, as explained above, the document described as a 'NTK' arrived too late
cabbyman
ECP advised they did not wish to contest therefore appeal successful.

Here is the final text of the appeal, for reference:

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) Lack of signage- unclear signage
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No keeper Liability - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012, was served too late and no 'Notice to Driver' was served whilst the car was stationary.

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below the requirements for a 'Notice to Driver' as set out in Schedule 4 which clearly requires either:

- Under paras 7 & 8: a windscreen PCN (in person, issued on the car before it leaves the site) followed by a postal 'Notice to Keeper' served no sooner than 29 days later,

OR

- Under paragraph 9: a compliant postal 'Notice to Keeper' to be served within 14 days of the event.

Neither of these two mandatory routes were followed in this case. Paragraph 7 states:

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given—

(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b)while the vehicle is stationary,

by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


No such Notice to Driver was served. Instead, a hybrid document the operator called a 'PCN' was posted. This neither matched the mandatory requirements of paragraph 7 as a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was posted, not served whilst the vehicle was stationary) nor does it meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

Any PCN/NTK must arrive by day 14 after the parking event. The late timing and non-compliant wording of this NTK is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...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''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

In any case, as explained above, the document described as a 'NTK' arrived too late - as if it was one which followed a windscreen PCN - yet this operator has failed to apply any windscreen Notice to Driver. Consequently, ECP has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If ECP should try to suggest that there is any method outwith 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

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.”

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; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

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 parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They do they clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite ECP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

3) No evidence of period parked. The NtK clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of a 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 24 minutes overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 44 minutes.

4)No landowner Authority:

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

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put ECP to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question ECP’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that ECP is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that ECP are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“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.''

I put ECP to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 20 minutes in a car park.
I require ECP to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
5) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst manoeuvring into the car park from the public road and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligible.



The BPA Code of Practice states that- “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. “

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. I put ECP to strict proof on this point. As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car park, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore, as stated, a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...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.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.




6) 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 Shell Gatwick 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.



I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.



Many thanks to all the regulars for their usual high standard of assistance. biggrin.gif
nosferatu1001
Well done!

Can you add this to the "completed cases" sub forum? With a link to this thread it will help others in your situation.
cabbyman
Have done. I thought I had blown it when I didn't remove the hints to a NtD. ECP obviously didn't spot that and panicked with the comprehensive flattening of the rest of their 'terms.'
nosferatu1001
Its just easier to cacnel than contest. They dont pay the POPLA fee then.

Ombudsmen must be kicking themselves with this current contract....
sharkynigel
Hi Cabbyman, new to the forum but received exactly the same type of penalty that you successfully managed to get cancelled.
Can I just use the posted text that you added on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 14:07.

Do you think that one reply would do it?

Thanks

N
emanresu
@sharkynigel

If you start your own thread people will help you. Though cases may look the same, they are all decided on the individual circumstances.
nosferatu1001
Start your own thread if you want detailed advice

PPCs are capricious beasts. It could be that they cancel, or a different person decides not to.
cabbyman
I'm wondering if there is any mileage in DPA breach here following recent court decisions?

ECP failed to offer evidence to POPLA after the RK had submitted an appeal that contained all the well known points.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.