Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Minster Baywatch: Reel Cinema
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Moorhouses
Received a PCN from Minster Baywatch. Reason was 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park'.

It appears the car park has a free 4-hour period, but on this occasion the driver went to watch a particularly long film which was 3.5hrs long. Include a drink at the local establishment (also based on the car park) and it appears they've overstayed the 4hours. Pictures showing the vehicle arriving and leaving shows it was around 35 minutes over the 4hrs.

Driver wasn't aware that there was a 4hr period, let alone a ticket machine!

Driver has contacted the cinema manager to ask for help but has unfortunately been unsuccessful.

Would the next step be to contact Minster Baywatch to appeal on the basis of being unaware? Or should the appeal be a little more thought out?

Many thanks!
ManxRed
Can you get a picture of the signs displayed onsite?

Post up the NTK, scrubbed of personal details but leave the dates in.
Moorhouses
Thanks Manx,

Heading to the site after work to look for signs. Will be sure to take photos and upload NTK later.

Thanks!
Moorhouses



Second visit, and sadly it appears it's quite clear with signs. I blame it on the driver being there on a date and being preoccupied!

There are 2 pay and display machines as you come in, but none on the normal 'route' you walk from the car park to the cinema. However, there are quite a number of the yellow 'PAY AND STAY' signs.

Frustratingly, it's also a fair price for parking there over and above the 4hrs. If an invoice came through to the driver requesting £1, I'm sure they would be happy to pay it - however, 100x that amount is quite an increase...
Redivi
You've left all the identification details on that Notice to Keeper

Parking companies follow this forum and will use any information they find

Second visit, and sadly it appears it's quite clear with signs.
On the contrary; it isn't clear at all

The car park is managed by two companies - Minster Baywatch and Branby Wilson
It's Branby Wilson not Minster Baywatch that offers 4 hrs free parking and its charge is £95 not £100

A driver reading the Branby signs at the payment machine has no reason or obligation to read any other signs

Taken together the signs appear to read that a motorist that overstays owes £95 to Branby for the under-payment and £100 to Minster Baywatch for the absence of the ticket

The two companies may have the same director, Christopher Wilson, but they are separate legal entities
One isn't a trading name of the other
Moorhouses
Bah. Thought it was only personal details... Thanks, will re upload!







Dates/Times ok to leave?
Redivi
Leave the dates

See my edit concerning the identity of the companies
Moorhouses
QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 18:49) *
You've left all the identification details on that Notice to Keeper

Parking companies follow this forum and will use any information they find

Second visit, and sadly it appears it's quite clear with signs.
On the contrary; it isn't clear at all

The car park is managed by two companies - Minster Baywatch and Branby Wilson
It's Branby Wilson not Minster Baywatch that offers 4 hrs free parking and its charge is £95 not £100

A driver reading the Branby signs at the payment machine has no reason or obligation to read any other signs

Taken together the signs appear to read that a motorist that overstays owes £95 to Branby for the under-payment and £100 to Minster Baywatch for the absence of the ticket

The two companies may have the same director, Christopher Wilson, but they are separate legal entities
One isn't a trading name of the other


Thank you, Red.

So should it be immediately appealed on the basis that the driver didn't enter a contract with Minster Baywatch as the name on the ticket machine was Branby Wilson..?
nosferatu1001
Indeed it can be appealed on that basis

Or point out that it is unclear who, if anyone, a contratc was allegedly entered into - two different entities cannot both offer the same contract through "conduct" (ie parking) as there is confusion.
Moorhouses
Appeal rejected from Minster Baywatch. (As expected).

The appeal will now go ahead to POPLA of course, but just wanted to ask for some advice. I have found a POPLA appeal that was accepted on the same basis and with the same company. Can I reference this POPLA acceptance within my appeal?

Below is the rejection from Minster Baywatch:

Dear Mr X,
Re: Notice Number XXXXXX (Vehicle: XXX XXX)
Site: Burnley, Hollywood Park
Issue date: 22/08/2019
POPLA Code: XXX
Further to your appeal received on 28/08/2019 regarding the above charge, we note your comments;
however, when this charge was issued this vehicle was in contravention of the agreed terms and
conditions for all users of this site.
Your appeal has been reviewed along with all evidence gathered at the time of the breach of the site
rules.
There is a contract to enter this site, as stipulated by signage located around the car park, which clearly
states that the fee for the duration of parking must be covered. Your vehicle was observed to
contravene this condition. After having thoroughly examined the payment records for the date and time
in question, we can find no payment having been made for your vehicle or a vehicle with a similar
registration.
We are therefore unable to cancel the charge as it was issued correctly. You have now reached the
end of our internal appeals procedure and must choose to do one of the following: Pay the charge at
the prevailing rate of £60 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the discounted rate will no
longer apply and the Charge will rise to £100.
You can submit a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land
Appeals) using the POPLA code provided above. Please note that where a charge has been issued in
Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver may appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA and you
withdraw your appeal or your appeal is rejected, the option to pay at the discounted amount of £60 will
no longer apply and the full amount of £100 will be due. Further details on how to appeal to POPLA can
be found on their website, www.popla.co.uk.
If you choose to do nothing, after 35 days we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt
recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. By law we are also required to
inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provide an alternative dispute
resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to
participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you
must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
To support our eligibility to pursue this Parking Charge Notice, we would like to draw your attention to
the fact that on 4th November 2015 there was a landmark Court decision that saw a motorist challenge
a Parking Charge Notice through the Court system of England and Wales with the final appeal to the
Supreme Court. Where, in a final decision made by the Supreme Court Judges, a Judgement was
handed down supporting the view that a parking charge should be viewed as an effective deterrent.
The judgment confirmed the parking charge was lawful and motorists parking on private land must
comply with the advertised terms and conditions. Further information regarding this judgement can be
found at www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html
Payments can be made by cheque or postal order - payable to MINSTER BAYWATCH LTD, or on the
Minster Baywatch Website - www.minsterbaywatch.co.uk
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Minster Baywatch Ltd
ManxRed
How old is the POPLA appeal that you've found? Are you sure its exactly the same circumstances?

Draft up your version and post it here for critique.
Moorhouses
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 17:12) *
How old is the POPLA appeal that you've found? Are you sure its exactly the same circumstances?

Draft up your version and post it here for critique.



Yes, it was appealed on the same basis. Details below:



Verification Code - 4110049017
POPLA assessment and decision - 14/05/2019

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/newrep...y&t=4488337

Assessor Name - Ashlea Forshaw

Assessor summary of operator case - The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for the following reason, ‘parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full’.

Assessor summary of your case - The appellant has provided a document, which outlines his grounds for appeal. The grounds are as follows: • No contract offered by Minister Baywatch – different company on the sign. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Grace period – non compliance of the BPA Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision - I am satisfied that the appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As the driver has not been identified, I will be assessing keepers liability. For the operator to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, it must issue a notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the notice must comply with schedule 4, paragraph 9. Having assessed the notice, I am satisfied that this has met PoFA 2012 and therefore, the keeper can now be held liable for any unpaid parking charges.

Whilst I note that the appellant has provided more than one ground for appeal to POPLA, I will be focusing on the concerns regarding landowner authority and misleading signage at the site.

The appellant has said that the sign at the site is misleading. He states that he did not see any information on the sign regarding ‘Minister Baywatch’ and therefore he cannot have entered into a contract with them. He says that the sign states that the company ‘Bransby Wilson’ is managing the car park however it was not Bransby Wilson who issued the PCN.

I refer to section 18.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice which outlines to operator’s, “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… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Having looked at the signage on site, I can see that there are two different signs located within the car park.

One of the signs displays the tariffs and states ‘this car park is managed by Bransby Wilson’. I can see that one of those signs displays the ‘Minister Baywatch’ logo in the bottom corner however, it is not very clear to see when driving into the site.

There are other signs displayed which are on a yellow background. Those signs are placed on the brick buildings surrounding the site and whilst they may state ‘Minister Baywatch’ on them, those signs are very small to see and upon close inspection I am not satisfied that they are clear in stating who the car park is operated by.

It appears that Bransby Wilson is the owner of the car park however, they have authorised Minister Baywatch to operate on the site and issue PCN’s to any motorist who parks in breach of the terms in place. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.”

Whilst the document is signed by both Bransby Wilson and Minister Baywatch, I do not consider the signage at the site to be clear in stating who is managing the car park. The appellant states that he was not aware Minister Baywatch was operating on site and so, I am satisfied that he did not enter into a contract with Minister Baywatch. The signs must be clear, and they were not.

As such, based on poor signage I will be allowing this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration. This appeal is allowed.
Moorhouses
POPLA appeal below. Any advice would be much appreciated:

Appeal re POPLA Code: VS Minster Baywatch Parks Ltd
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXX
POPLA ref: XXXXXXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated (22/08/2019) acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator Minster Baywatch was submitted and acknowledged on but subsequently rejected by email dated (30/08/2019). I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
2) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate) A serious BPA CoP breach
4) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

1. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:
“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix B) states:
“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”
“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material” In addition to the lack of entry signs, Minster Baywatch main car park sign (the only one in the car park displaying terms and conditions) is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read. It clearly violates BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) and appendix B.
It cannot be reasonably assumed (particularly given this case took place after sunset in a car park without its own lighting or without any signage being adequately lit) that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park, nor parked near one. This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
''The signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.
Very recently (April 2018) here was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal versus ParkingEye which was successful on the grounds that the assessor (Ashlea Forshaw) believed there was a clear lack of lighting and that the signs could not be clearly seen during the hours of darkness. Ashlea Forshaw wrote the following:
“Having assessed the operator's evidence of the signage displayed at the site, I am not satisfied that this proves that the signs are displayed clearly in the dark.”
“The ANPR photos clearly demonstrate that the appellant has entered the site during the hours of darkness. Therefore, I would expect the operator to provide sufficient evidence proving that there is lighting at the site and that the signs can be clearly seen during the hours of darkness. On this occasion, the operator has failed to demonstrate this and so, I cannot conclude that a contract was formed. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and the other grounds for appeal do not need any further consideration.”
The terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put Minster Baywatch to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size. As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here: ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
...and the same here: 'When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''
When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (too high, on the passenger side of the vehicle, not visible from drivers side), invisible after dark (not lit, too high to be lit by virtue of reflecting any vehicle headlights, particularly from a moving vehicle), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.
Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Minster Baywatch. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.
2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

3. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:
“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
Be registered with the Information Commissioner
Keep to the Data Protection Act
Follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
Follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks
The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:
The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:
“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:
• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
"The private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”
“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”
“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”
“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”
“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”
“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”
“Note:
... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”
“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”
The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if Minster Baywatch wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that Minster Baywatch must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.
It therefore follows that I require Minster Baywatch to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.
The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:
“5.3 Staying in Control
Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:
• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”
7.6 Privacy Notices
It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.
One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.
Minster Baywatch d has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Minster Baywatch has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.
As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

4. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
Minster Baywatch NtK simply claims “that the vehicle “entered Car Park at (18:20) and departed at (23:09)”. Minster Baywatch states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site.
In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, POPLA please take note and bin your usual 'ANPR is generally OK' template because:
The British Parking Association DOES NOT AUDIT the ANPR systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has NO WAY to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has NOT found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.
As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:
Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says:
"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said:
"In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate"
You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us. This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.
POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says:
''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.''
Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.''
Secondly, ANPR data processing and/or system failure is well known, and is certainly inappropriate in a mixed retail and residential area, such as the location in question.
The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws:
''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'' and they specifically mention the flaw of assuming that 'drive in, drive out' events are parking events. They state that: ''Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner''.
In this case, as the driver drove in and briefly stopped where there are no signs or bays at all (not in any retail area, but at a private residence not signed as being managed by Smart Parking) the ANPR system has indeed failed and the operator has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data from their system.
Excessive use of ANPR 24/7 when such blanket coverage is overkill in terms of data processing, was also condemned by the BPA and the ICO:
As POPLA can see from that, excessive use of ANPR is in fact, illegal, and no-one audits it except for the ICO when the public, or groups, make complaints.
Minster Baywatch is put to strict proof that the system has not failed visitors to the residential homes within this site.
POPLA cannot use your usual 'the BPA audits it' erroneous template which needs consigning to the bin.
Please show the above email from Steve Clark, to your Lead Adjudicator.
Kindly stop assuming ANPR systems work, and expecting consumers to prove the impossible about the workings of a system over which they have no control but where independent and publicly available information about its inherent failings is very readily available.

5. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


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.