Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Another PCN received with insufficient evidence
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2
jagoico2000
The driver of my car studies at a college during the week and pays for parking on a pay and display basis. Today I received the following PCN. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle so they are chasing me. However, the driver asserts that he/she has always paid and displayed. He/she doesn't keep the stubs indefinitely.

The PCN shows CCTV footage of the car entering and leaving but not of parking. Nor does it show any evidence of the car being parked without a pay and display ticket.

Is there a recommended template for an appeal? I can't understand how this is meant to work. What's to stop them sending one of these for every day and putting the burden of proof on me?

I should add there was no sticky parking "ticket" put on the windscreen. The driver has seen them doing this for other cars. This was purely a retrospective PCN issued.




How about this:

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car. I was not the driver of the car at the times specified in the "PCN" and you have not provided any evidence that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit. The driver has confirmed separately that they did indeed have a valid permit at the time.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
cabbyman
Let's have a look at the back as well.
Jlc
The pay bit is fine - there's no 'display' as it's all done by cameras. Either the car registration was entered incorrectly or their machines messed up.

Their machines messing up does happen - they doth protest but could face a data protection claim.

But as the PCN does not even attempt to use PoFA then you're on to a winner...

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:41) *
Let's have a look at the back as well.

Yup, just to double check wording...
SchoolRunMum
I think CEL now have the POFA wording correctly stated on the back (check yours) so the fact you were not driving won't assist you.

I would use the MSE forum version of template appeal instead, from the NEWBIES thread there, because it includes a question about whether the VRN was recorded wrongly by their machine and if so it asks for a copy of the PDT machine list (this is evidence that will help you see that the issue was).
jagoico2000
Back of the letter here:

SchoolRunMum
Yes, as I said, you can see the wording there (no need for us to point it out).
cabbyman
The have no evidence of the period parked, as you mentioned. That's a point to make.
jagoico2000
Sorry if I don't get it but, how does the fact they mention PoFA wording on the back change things?

I've checked the MSE website. Template letter:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems a bit wordy to me. Not sure it works with the PCN they sent me. Alternatively, what I suggested earlier:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car. I was not the driver of the car at the times specified in the "PCN" and you have not provided any evidence that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit. The driver has confirmed separately that they did indeed have a valid permit at the time.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umkomaas
QUOTE
Sorry if I don't get it but, how does the fact they mention PoFA wording on the back change things?

Because they need to meet the full requirements of PoFA in order to transfer liability to the Registered Keeper - that paragraph is the warning required by PoFA.

QUOTE
Seems a bit wordy to me. Not sure it works with the PCN they sent me. Alternatively, what I suggested earlier:

Well, sometimes we do get people who know far more than those who are dealing with this stuff day in, day out. Your choice.
jagoico2000
So is this wording okay?

Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date.

- the driver has confirmed that a valid permit was displayed correctly. Please provide evidence that there was no valid permit displayed.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,
Ollyfrog
QUOTE (jagoico2000 @ Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 09:39) *
- the driver has confirmed that a valid permit was displayed correctly. Please provide evidence that there was no valid permit displayed.


I thought this was pay and display rather than permit holder parking?
jagoico2000
Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date.

- the driver has confirmed that a valid "pay and display" permit was paid for and correctly displayed in the vehicle. Please provide evidence that there was no valid permit displayed.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,
SchoolRunMum
Yes, we got there in the end. I did say already, why to use that template without chopping it apart!

QUOTE
I would use the MSE forum version of template appeal instead, from the NEWBIES thread there, because it includes a question about whether the VRN was recorded wrongly by their machine and if so it asks for a copy of the PDT machine list (this is evidence that will help you see that the issue was).


Your 'less wordy' version didn't ask for that evidence, and talked vaguely about a permit which was completely irrelevant to your case if it's a PDT car park.
jagoico2000
Appeal submitted online
jagoico2000
I received the following rejection letter. Interestingly, they are using the Data Protection Act to not provide the information requested. A valid pay and display ticket was displayed and it was printed from a machine that requires you to enter the licence plate. Surely this constitutes Personally Identifiable Information under GDPR and they are required by law to provide this information on request? Should I complain to the ICO?

4 hours of parking were paid for and the pay and display ticket was put inside the car. No evidence has been provided to show that the car was parked without a valid pay and display ticket. They have only provided images of car entering and leaving the premises.

What should be my next step?










https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-...ual-indirectly/

Jlc
QUOTE (jagoico2000 @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 10:23) *
What should be my next step?

Use the POPLA code - they have failed to comply with PoFA so it's an easy win.

The ICO have stated that VRM's should be considered as PII - you are not strictly entitled to the logs of the machine (other than any that identity you as the keeper). They would be expected to produce them for a court claim mind - not that it's going to go that far...
jagoico2000
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 10:30) *
QUOTE (jagoico2000 @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 10:23) *
What should be my next step?

Use the POPLA code - they have failed to comply with PoFA so it's an easy win.

The ICO have stated that VRM's should be considered as PII - you are not strictly entitled to the logs of the machine (other than any that identity you as the keeper). They would be expected to produce them for a court claim mind - not that it's going to go that far...



Which part of the PoFA have they failed to comply with? Provision of evidence?
Jlc
Whoops, sorry - I've just realised this one does.
nosferatu1001
Your VRM is PII, so you require they produce the logs showing YOUR VRM was recorded. THey can suitably shorten other VRMs purely to show they were recorded.
jagoico2000
So do I just jump to POPLA?
nosferatu1001
Both.
SchoolRunMum
No.

POPLA codes last for 30 days or so.

First, and no delaying it at all, you email CEL's Data Protection Officer (see their privacy page and no saying they don't have a DPO email - they do). Tell them that the appeals team have lied about the DPA to refuse to provide the VRN list from the parking machine showing your VRN or a close match. Since it is a fact that the ICO has already ruled that a VRN is 'personal data' then you have a legal right to the VRN list with your VRN or close match (e.g. if the keypad was faulty and misrecorded it, as you expect). Any other VRNS around the same time can be partly redacted, as any other parking firm does when complying with GDPR and supplying a VRN list, adn you require CEL to do the same immediately.

Show a copy of your V5C as proof of ID and that you are the data subject with the right to enquire about that personal data/VRN.
jagoico2000
Already done the POPLA
jagoico2000
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:49) *
No.

POPLA codes last for 30 days or so.

First, and no delaying it at all, you email CEL's Data Protection Officer (see their privacy page and no saying they don't have a DPO email - they do). Tell them that the appeals team have lied about the DPA to refuse to provide the VRN list from the parking machine showing your VRN or a close match. Since it is a fact that the ICO has already ruled that a VRN is 'personal data' then you have a legal right to the VRN list with your VRN or close match (e.g. if the keypad was faulty and misrecorded it, as you expect). Any other VRNS around the same time can be partly redacted, as any other parking firm does when complying with GDPR and supplying a VRN list, adn you require CEL to do the same immediately.

Show a copy of your V5C as proof of ID and that you are the data subject with the right to enquire about that personal data/VRN.



It seems CEL doesn't have an email address...
Ollyfrog
Found within 3 minutes

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Here's the full paragraph on their privacy page

Your information

You have the right to make the following requests about personal data we may hold:
To inform you how and why it is processed; to give you access to it; rectify and incorrect information; to delete it; to restrict our use of it; to ask us to transfer a copy to a third party and object to our use of it.
Data protection law requires us to verify your identity before providing information, respond to your request and tell you why, if we do not agree with it.

If we hold any information about you which is incorrect or if there are any changes to your details please let us know so that we can keep our records accurate and up to date. If you would like to update your records or see a copy of the information that we hold about you, you can contact us at Data Protection Officer, Civil Enforcement Ltd, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool, L2 3PF or by email at dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk. If you request a copy of your information you will not need to pay any fee.
cabbyman
You will need to do more than just skim read if you are to succeed with this. The idea is to understand the process that you are in. To do that, you will need to read in detail.
jagoico2000
I sent an DSAR request by email.

I got a letter through the post from CEL:

"RESPONSE FROM REPRESENTATIONS TEAM

We refer to your recent correspondence.

Please be advised as the appeal has been referred to POPLA we are unable to deal with any further communications until POPLA has reached a decision on the Parking Contravention Notice"


I can only assume by "recent correspondence" they are referring to the Subject Access Request. I can't see they have any grounds for delaying my right to access to the data.
bearclaw
Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.

jagoico2000
They have now uploaded their evidence to POPLA.

A lengthy letter that looks like standard stuff they say about clear signage and this constitutes entering a contract with legal precendent etc., but the key thing is they have included what looks like a printout of the times at which the payments were made at the pay machine. So they admit that a ticket was purchased but that it was more than 10mins after entering the lot. They also say that shows other vehicles that have complied (although you cannot infer from this), and therefore the machine was in good working order.

However, according to the list they gave the ticket was purchased at 12:31:27 and the photo of the car entering the premises is timestamped at 12:10.

The next person purchased their ticked at 12:31:28 which is just 1 second for the driver to collect the ticket, step out of the way, the next person to approach, key in their licence number and enter payment which is not possible. Hence, the timings cannot be accurate.
nosferatu1001
Email the DPA regardleess
Ensure it is direct to DPO, headed as such in the body etc so they cannot claim they thought it was somehow an appeal.

Yep, you point that out! State it is NOT CREDIBLE that the machine took less than one secfond to complete all states, so either the log is inaccurate, it has been edited by the operator to mislead POPLA,e tc
Also point out that there is no proof that the ticket machine timing is DIRECTLY LINKED to the ANPR timing. They must PROVE they are from teh same time source.
jagoico2000
The signage does say "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival" but doesn't say what "arrival" means. It takes time to enter the premises and find a parking space. Does it mean entering the lot or actually parking and stopping the engine?

In the T&C it also says "If you do not obtain a valid ticket, you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of arrival...". So does that mean this doesn't apply if you did pay for the parking and get a valid ticket?

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:21) *
Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.



The email I sent was indeed to the DPO.
jagoico2000
This is the key evidence. Looks like anyone could have typed this up:

bearclaw
QUOTE (jagoico2000 @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:22) *
The signage does say "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival" but doesn't say what "arrival" means. It takes time to enter the premises and find a parking space. Does it mean entering the lot or actually parking and stopping the engine?

In the T&C it also says "If you do not obtain a valid ticket, you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of arrival...". So does that mean this doesn't apply if you did pay for the parking and get a valid ticket?

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:21) *
Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.



The email I sent was indeed to the DPO.


Thats really silly of them then isnt it. Dont lose that email - I'd print it out and file it with a note of when you did written on it.

Still send the above though - and get ready to make a complaint to the ICO.
nosferatu1001
You absolutely do tell the DPO that theyre mistaken if they think they can delay their obligations, and yuo will complain tot eh ICO if you do not get your data within the time period required.

"Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival"

CRA2015 (look it up) - if a term is ambiguous it MUST be interpreted in favour of the CONSUMER. THis COULD mean that it is within ten minutes of arriving at a parking space - because you cannot know what time you entered an unkown permieetn, you CAN take note of when you arrived at a space, so its even more reasonable to tajke this interpretation.
jagoico2000
Also, if they are counting it from the time you enter the gates, this is no longer a "parking charge". It is a "toll fee" which must come under a completely different set of rules

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:21) *
Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.


I sent the email
cabbyman
Be aware that the deadline for rebuttal at POPLA is only 7 days. I am not sure if it is from the date that you are notified or the date that POPLA receive it, so you may well already be under time pressures for this.

Try to respond as quickly as possible, while being diligent in ensuring a full rebuttal.
jagoico2000
Please can you review. This is what I have drafted for my POPLA response to the operator's evidence:

------------------------------------------

I have viewed the Operator's "evidence" and provide the following response.

• The Operator has now effectively admitted that a permit was indeed paid for on the day in question by providing what they claim is an extract from the ticketing machine evidencing this. This clearly shows an entry for the vehicle in question
• The Operator claims (point 6 of their response) that the report shows those vehicles that did purchase a parking session on the day in question. They also claim that this shows that the payment machine was in good working order on the date. There are some issues with these claims:
○ The evidence they have provided shows that payment for the vehicle in question was made at 12:31:27 and that payment for the next vehicle was made at 12:31:28. This is a difference of 1 second. This proves that this data is not reliable. In order to purchase the ticket, the driver must:
- wait for the previous person to collect their ticket and make way for the next person to get access to the machine
- Read and understand what needs to be done
- Enter the vehicle registration number into the machine
- Decide on and count out the appropriate money to pay
- Insert the appropriate payment into the machine
- Wait for the ticket to be printed

It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the above steps will take a lot longer than 1 second.

○ The time-stamp on the photo of the vehicle entering the premises is 12:10:40. The time stated for payment of the ticket on the report is 12:31:27. This is a difference of circa 21 minutes. It does not take 21 minutes to park the car and pay for the ticket particularly under the time constraints of having to sit a test at the educational establishment. The driver confirmed it took about 5 minutes to complete this process. Whilst the Operator has stated (point 19 in their response) that the ANPR cameras are calibrated and updated to be inline with GMT, the Operator has not provided any evidence that the system clocks on the ANPR cameras and the system clocks on the payment machines were synchronised on that day. The evidence indicates that they are not synchronised nor are the timestamps in the payment machine accurate.

○ The report of payments from the machine does not prove that other vehicles were parked correctly as claimed by the operator. If it did, then it would also prove that the vehicle in question was also parked correctly by virtue of the fact that it is listed in the report from the payment machine.

○ The Operator has provided photographs to show other cars parked correctly. These were taken on 19th October 2017 as shown in the timestamps and do not prove anything in relation to this claim.

• The Operator is now focussing their argument on the 10 minute condition. There are significant problems with this claim:
○ There is signage that states "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival". It does not define what is meant by "arrival". As this charge relates to a parking charge and not a toll gate, then the timing should relate to when the car was parked. As stated before, the operator has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence relating to this. The only photographic evidence provided is that of the vehicle entering and leaving the premises which would only be relevant to a toll charge and not a parking charge.
○ The Operator has cited (point 20 in their response) that the grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice in accordance with the British Parking Association in their Code of Practice. The BPA states:

"Clause 13.2 and 30.2 - If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes."

This clearly states that the grace period must be applied to the "parking event" and not the time of entry to the premises.

○ In accordance with CRA2015, if a term is ambiguous it MUST be interpreted in favour of the CONSUMER. The term "arrival" could mean that it is within ten minutes of arriving at a parking space.

"Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chapter 15
Section 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings
331.Contract terms can be ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in different ways, especially if they are not in writing or in an accessible format. In these cases, this section ensures that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the consumer, rather than the trader, is the interpretation that is used.
"

○ The Operator has failed to provide the requested evidence to support their claim. The Operator has not provided any evidence that more than 10 minutes expired from the time at which the car was parked to when the payment was made. They have not provided any evidence of the vehicle parked at a particular time without a valid permit. They have only provided photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the premises which is not relevant to this claim

○ The Operator has admitted (point 19 in their response) "The high-tech cameras are not designed to monitor movements within the car park and we do not operate Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras.". In stating this, the Operator has admitted that they do not have evidence of the car parking event.


• A Data Subject Access Request was raised with the Data Protection Officer for the parking Operator to gain access to my personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation. The Operator misrepresented the Data Protection Act to refuse to provide this information (as can be seen in page 18 of the evidence provided by the Operator). They then sent a letter citing that because a POPLA appeal was under way, they are unable to deal with any further communication until the POPLA has reached a decision. This is in direct violation of my rights under the General Data Protection Regulation and a formal complaint will be made to the Information Commissioners Office. If the Operator had complied with my rights the first stage of the POPLA appeals process would have had all the relevant information proving the points above. Hence, one could argue that this was an attempt by the Operator to compromise the POPLA appeals process by deliberately withholding information from the Data Subject.

The educational establishment at which the parking "incident" occurred is for adult education and is frequented by people for whom there are language barriers and/or may lack the confidence to challenge PCNs. There is an abundance of such incidents where people have paid for parking at this location only to receive a PCN by post.

All things considered, there is clear evidence that the behaviour of the operator is predatory in nature and they are not administering in good faith a contract for parking on private land.

In view of the above points I request you reject the parking operator's claim.

Many thanks,

------------------------------------------
Umkomaas
You have only 2,000 characters (not words) to respond. The above runs to 6,945. You'll need to replace a scalpel with a chain saw. Cut out the waffle, use bulletpoints rather than full blown sentences. Don't even think of trying to scrape through with just a few more than the maximum - it won't work, then you're on the back foot with little time to further modify.

I haven't checked whether you have or not, but be aware that you are responding precisely to what the PPC has submitted in their evidence pack - you cannot add new evidence of your own not previously alluded to in your own POPLA appeal.
jagoico2000
QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 22:18) *
You have only 2,000 characters (not words) to respond. The above runs to 6,945. You'll need to replace a scalpel with a chain saw. Cut out the waffle, use bulletpoints rather than full blown sentences. Don't even think of trying to scrape through with just a few more than the maximum - it won't work, then you're on the back foot with little time to further modify.

I haven't checked whether you have or not, but be aware that you are responding precisely to what the PPC has submitted in their evidence pack - you cannot add new evidence of your own not previously alluded to in your own POPLA appeal.



I see that there is an option to respond by email instead which would not be limited to 2000 characters. Anyone else done this?
Redivi
Several times

The acknowledgements say that the rebuttals have been passed to the assessor but their content is never mentioned in the assessor's report

I don't therefore believe that emailed rebuttals are looked at, although I have doubts that the online rebuttals are properly considered either
jagoico2000
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 02:34) *
Several times

The acknowledgements say that the rebuttals have been passed to the assessor but their content is never mentioned in the assessor's report

I don't therefore believe that emailed rebuttals are looked at, although I have doubts that the online rebuttals are properly considered either


Well considering I spent hours working on this that's damn depressing...
jagoico2000
I've reduced it below 2000 characters (including spaces):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to the Operator's "evidence":

• Operator now admits permit WAS paid for and provides an extract from the pay machine proving this. They now claim payment was made after 10 minutes of “arrival”

• Payment report:
o Point 16: They say the report proves other cars were parked correctly – then it must also do so for mine
o False timings. It shows payment at 12:31:27 and the next 1 second later at 12:31:28. It is impossible to wait for the previous person, enter your VRN, pay and print the permit in 1s
o Point 19: They say the cameras are calibrated. They have not evidenced that the clocks on the cameras and the pay machine were synchronised. They imply it took ~21 mins to enter the gates and pay. This is unrealistic and driver confirmed it took ~5 mins

• 10 minute condition:
o Point 14: Signage "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival" does not define "arrival". This relates to a PCN, NOT A TOLL GATE, and must relate to ARRIVAL AT PARKING SPACE - NOT PREMISES

o CRA2015: “Arrival” is ambiguous and MUST be interpreted in favour of the CONSUMER:

CRA2015 Ch 15 Sect 69:” ....Contract terms can be ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in different ways.... In these cases, this section ensures that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the consumer, rather than the trader, is the interpretation that is used."

o Point 20: They say a grace period was considered in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. Not so. BPA states grace period must be applied to the PARKING EVENT NOT ARRIVAL AT PREMISES:

"Clause 13.2 and 30.2 - ... you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING EVENT before enforcement action is taken... the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes."

o Point 19: "The high-tech cameras are not designed to monitor movements within the car park and we do not operate Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera". This admits they do not have evidence of the parking event

• Site photos were taken on 19/10/17


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jagoico2000
I've not submitted this yet, so would appreciate timely review comments.

POPLA sent their email to me on 24th Jan so have 7 days from then
nosferatu1001
You are aware this is a weekend and not everyone looks on a weekend. We have lives

It covers most of the points
Try it
jagoico2000
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 27 Jan 2019 - 13:35) *
You are aware this is a weekend and not everyone looks on a weekend. We have lives

It covers most of the points
Try it



I didn't mean it to come across like that. Apologies.

Thanks for the steer.
jagoico2000
Tweaked to get in a point about the trying to compromise the appeal process:

------------------------------

Response to the Operator's "evidence":

• Operator now admits permit WAS paid for and provides an extract from the pay machine proving this. They now claim payment was made after 10 minutes of “arrival”

• Payment report:
o Point 16: They say the report proves other cars were parked correctly – then it must also do so for mine
o False timings. It shows payment at 12:31:27 and the next 1 second later at 12:31:28. It is impossible to wait for the previous person, enter your VRN, pay and print the permit in 1s
o Point 19: They say the cameras are calibrated. They have not evidenced that the clocks on the cameras and the pay machine were synchronised. They imply it took ~21 mins to enter the gates and pay. This is unrealistic and driver confirmed it took ~5 mins

• 10 minute condition:
o Point 14: Signage "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival" does not define "arrival". This relates to a PCN, NOT A TOLL GATE, and must relate to ARRIVAL AT PARKING SPACE – NOT PREMISES

o Ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the CONSUMER:

CRA2015 Ch 15 Sect 69:” ....Contract terms can be ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in different ways.... In these cases, this section ensures that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the consumer, rather than the trader, is the interpretation that is used."

o Point 20: They say a grace period was considered in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. Not so. BPA states grace period must be applied to the PARKING EVENT NOT ARRIVAL AT PREMISES:

"Clause 13.2 and 30.2 - ... you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING EVENT before enforcement action is taken... the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes."

o Point 19: "The high-tech cameras are not designed to monitor movements within the car park and we do not operate Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera". They admit no evidence exists of the parking event. Only of payment

• Pages 13, 18: they withheld data to compromise the appeal


-------------------------------------------------------
jagoico2000
Submitted yesterday
jagoico2000
I got a rejection from POPLA as follows:

---

"
Your parking charge Appeal against Civil Enforcement.
Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your appeal.
We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the parking charge notice number; xxxxx. The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal, and POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator. If an appeal is Allowed this means that your appeal has been successful, and the operator should cancel the parking charge. When an appeal is Refused this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action being taken by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days. The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused. Please find the explanation of the decision below:
The assessor’s summary of the operator’s case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay within 10 minutes of arriving.
The assessor’s summary of the appellant’s case:
The appellant’s case is that the driver of the vehicle purchased a ticket for four hours and displayed the ticket in the vehicle . They state that the vehicle left well within the purchased time and the operator claims that no ticket was purchased. They state that they have requested evidence from the operator and that the operator has only provided two photographs which show the vehicle entering and leaving. They state that the operator has refused to provide the data from the payment machine that would prove payment was made by citing the Data Protection Act. They state that there have been numerous similar incidents at the Redbridge Institute of Adult Learning where students and teachers alike have been issued PCNs despite correctly paying and displaying a valid ticket.

The appellant has provided images of the payment machine and a letter from the operator as evidence to support their appeal.
Reasons for the assessor’s determination:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay within 10 minutes of arrival. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: ”Phone and pay or pay at machine”, Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival”,”If you do not obtain a valid permit you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of arrival (b) not overstay the purchased parking time …..”,”If you breach any of these terms you will be charge £100”. Further to this the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:10 and exiting at 14:41 on the day in question. The operator maintains a list of vehicles which have made payment on the day against individual vehicle registration details .In this evidence it has demonstrated that a payment had been made for the vehicle at 12:31 on the day of the incident. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the motorist and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states that the driver of the vehicle purchased a ticket for four hours and displayed the ticket in the vehicle . They state that the vehicle left well within the purchased time and the operator claims that no ticket was purchased. They state that they have requested evidence from the operator and that the operator has only provided two photographs which show the vehicle entering and leaving. While I appreciate that the driver had made a payment they had not complied with the terms and conditions as they had not paid within 10 minutes of arrival. The evidence provided by the operator shows that the vehicle arrived at 12:10 and the payment was recorded at 12:31 which is 21 minutes after arriving on the site. I have reviewed the evidence of the signage on the site provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions They state that the operator has refused to provide the data from the payment machine that would prove payment was made by citing the Data Protection Act. They state that there have been numerous similar incidents at the Redbridge Institute of Adult Learning where students and teachers alike have been issued PCNs despite correctly paying and displaying a valid ticket. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator directly and the ICO directly. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave to avoid receiving a PCN. The motorist chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties , the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay within 10 minutes of arriving and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore this appeal must be refused..
Yours sincerely...
"

---

What happens now? They completely ignored the points I made in my appeal about them measuring time from the time of entry to the premises to the parking lot, the fact that the timings on their "evidence" shows it is 1 second between this payment and the previous one, the fact that this is meant to be a parking charge notice and not a toll gate. And the fact that the operator admitted themselves that they don't have evidence of the parking event!!!


Do I now just pay up?
nosferatu1001
Yes, they entirekly ignored the rebuttal comments
Obviously you complain to the lead assessor. Do a search on MSE forum should give the email address
jagoico2000
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 09:14) *
Yes, they entirekly ignored the rebuttal comments
Obviously you complain to the lead assessor. Do a search on MSE forum should give the email address



But the letter says:

"The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal, and POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator"
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.