I still advise you to follow up with the formal complaint to Smart and then with the BPA. That cancellation is not a response to the formal complaint I suggested you send to them. Be insistent. They are on the back foot now and we also need to see what sanctions the BPA will impose on this rogue operator.
Here is a suggested complaint to (not so) Smart:QuoteSubject: Formal Complaint Regarding Handling of POPLA Appeal [Case Reference]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Vehicle Registration Number: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]
I am writing to formally inform you of my complaint regarding the handling of my POPLA appeal. Given your demonstrated incompetence and unprofessionalism, I am not seeking an investigation but merely informing you of the reasons for this complaint and the actions I have already taken.
Key Issues:1. GDPR Breach: Your submission in response to my POPLA appeal contained personal details from another motorist’s appeal, referencing breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child—information that is entirely irrelevant to my case, as I am male and do not have a 6-month-old child. This constitutes a gross breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, and such a careless error only highlights your incompetence and unlawful handling of personal data.
2. Tampered and Outdated Evidence: Your submission also included signage evidence from 2017, with suspicious metadata showing the “creation” date as November 2017 and the “modified” date as May 2017. This, coupled with the fact that Google Street View from March 2023 confirms that the signage no longer exists, shows that you have submitted outdated and misleading evidence to POPLA.
Escalation Already Initiated: As a result of these serious failings, I have already escalated a formal complaint to the DVLA regarding your violations of the KADOE contract. Additionally, I will be escalating this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) irrespective of your response. Your repeated failures in this case demonstrate a clear lack of professionalism and competence that needs to be addressed by regulatory authorities.
Next Steps: While I doubt you will cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at this stage, as the appeal has already been submitted to POPLA (a fee you have already wasted), I want to make it clear that your position is indefensible. Should you wish to withdraw your POPLA submission, it is already too late to save yourselves from the consequences of your own incompetence. You are now being held to account by your own errors.
I trust this matter will be duly noted on your side.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]
Here is a suggested initial complaint to the DVLA to start the ball rolling:QuoteSubject: Breach of KADOE Contract by Smart Parking Ltd
Dear Sir/Madam,
Vehicle Registration Number: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Smart Parking Ltd for their blatant breaches of the KADOE contract, which governs their access to vehicle keeper data through the DVLA. This complaint is supported by attached evidence, which clearly demonstrates the operator's incompetence, unprofessional behavior, and unlawful conduct. I am aware that this is not an isolated incident, as other motorists have raised similar concerns about Smart Parking’s misuse of personal data. Given the financial relationship between the DVLA and operators like Smart Parking, I am concerned that this complaint may be deflected to protect your income stream. However, I expect the DVLA to address this issue transparently and fully investigate these breaches.
Key Issues:1. GDPR Breach: In their response to my POPLA appeal, Smart Parking embedded another motorist’s POPLA appeal within mine, including personal details completely irrelevant to my case. This breach includes references to breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child—information that obviously has nothing to do with me, as I am male and have no such child. This careless inclusion of another individual’s personal data not only violates Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR but also demonstrates Smart Parking's incompetence and lack of professionalism. By acting unlawfully and irresponsibly in this manner, they have clearly violated the standards of conduct required under the KADOE contract.
2. Tampered and Outdated Evidence: Additionally, Smart Parking submitted signage evidence from 2017, which contains tampered metadata, showing the “creation” date as November 2017, while the “modified” date is May 2017. Further to this, Google Street View from March 2023 confirms that the signage in their submission no longer exists. This is a clear attempt to mislead by submitting tampered and outdated evidence, which further demonstrates their lack of professionalism and their failure to comply with the KADOE contract’s requirements for accurate and lawful conduct.
Escalation to BPA, ICO, and MP Involvement: In addition to this complaint, I have escalated the matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Evidence of these blatant breaches of the KADOE contract, GDPR, and BPA Code of Practice will also be submitted to these bodies. Furthermore, I will be raising these concerns with my Member of Parliament, asking them to bring this matter to the attention of the relevant government ministers. This is a serious issue that warrants ministerial oversight to ensure that the DVLA is fulfilling its obligations to protect the public’s personal data.
Action Requested: I request that the DVLA conduct a formal investigation into Smart Parking’s conduct and provide me with a detailed response, including the specific sanctions or actions the DVLA intends to take regarding these violations. I expect the DVLA to address these issues appropriately, rather than deflecting the complaint to protect its income stream from this lucrative operator. Given Smart Parking’s breaches of the KADOE contract, I believe that their access to sensitive vehicle keeper data should be reconsidered.
Please find attached the relevant evidence to support my complaint, including the tampered and outdated evidence provided by Smart Parking and the GDPR breach in which personal data from another motorist’s appeal was embedded in mine. I trust that this matter will be handled with the seriousness it deserves.
I look forward to your response, including a full explanation of the actions you will take.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Handling of POPLA Appeal [Case Reference]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Vehicle Registration Number: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]
I am writing to formally inform you of my complaint regarding the handling of my POPLA appeal. Given your demonstrated incompetence and unprofessionalism, I am not seeking an investigation but merely informing you of the reasons for this complaint and the actions I have already taken.
Key Issues:1. GDPR Breach: Your submission in response to my POPLA appeal contained personal details from another motorist’s appeal, referencing breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child—information that is entirely irrelevant to my case, as I am male and do not have a 6-month-old child. This constitutes a gross breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, and such a careless error only highlights your incompetence and unlawful handling of personal data.
2. Tampered and Outdated Evidence: Your submission also included signage evidence from 2017, with suspicious metadata showing the “creation” date as November 2017 and the “modified” date as May 2017. This, coupled with the fact that Google Street View from March 2023 confirms that the signage no longer exists, shows that you have submitted outdated and misleading evidence to POPLA.
Escalation Already Initiated: As a result of these serious failings, I have already escalated a formal complaint to the DVLA regarding your violations of the KADOE contract. Additionally, I will be escalating this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) irrespective of your response. Your repeated failures in this case demonstrate a clear lack of professionalism and competence that needs to be addressed by regulatory authorities.
Next Steps: While I doubt you will cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at this stage, as the appeal has already been submitted to POPLA (a fee you have already wasted), I want to make it clear that your position is indefensible. Should you wish to withdraw your POPLA submission, it is already too late to save yourselves from the consequences of your own incompetence. You are now being held to account by your own errors.
I trust this matter will be duly noted on your side.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]
Subject: Breach of KADOE Contract by Smart Parking Ltd
Dear Sir/Madam,
Vehicle Registration Number: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Smart Parking Ltd for their blatant breaches of the KADOE contract, which governs their access to vehicle keeper data through the DVLA. This complaint is supported by attached evidence, which clearly demonstrates the operator's incompetence, unprofessional behavior, and unlawful conduct. I am aware that this is not an isolated incident, as other motorists have raised similar concerns about Smart Parking’s misuse of personal data. Given the financial relationship between the DVLA and operators like Smart Parking, I am concerned that this complaint may be deflected to protect your income stream. However, I expect the DVLA to address this issue transparently and fully investigate these breaches.
Key Issues:1. GDPR Breach: In their response to my POPLA appeal, Smart Parking embedded another motorist’s POPLA appeal within mine, including personal details completely irrelevant to my case. This breach includes references to breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child—information that obviously has nothing to do with me, as I am male and have no such child. This careless inclusion of another individual’s personal data not only violates Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR but also demonstrates Smart Parking's incompetence and lack of professionalism. By acting unlawfully and irresponsibly in this manner, they have clearly violated the standards of conduct required under the KADOE contract.
2. Tampered and Outdated Evidence: Additionally, Smart Parking submitted signage evidence from 2017, which contains tampered metadata, showing the “creation” date as November 2017, while the “modified” date is May 2017. Further to this, Google Street View from March 2023 confirms that the signage in their submission no longer exists. This is a clear attempt to mislead by submitting tampered and outdated evidence, which further demonstrates their lack of professionalism and their failure to comply with the KADOE contract’s requirements for accurate and lawful conduct.
Escalation to BPA, ICO, and MP Involvement: In addition to this complaint, I have escalated the matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Evidence of these blatant breaches of the KADOE contract, GDPR, and BPA Code of Practice will also be submitted to these bodies. Furthermore, I will be raising these concerns with my Member of Parliament, asking them to bring this matter to the attention of the relevant government ministers. This is a serious issue that warrants ministerial oversight to ensure that the DVLA is fulfilling its obligations to protect the public’s personal data.
Action Requested: I request that the DVLA conduct a formal investigation into Smart Parking’s conduct and provide me with a detailed response, including the specific sanctions or actions the DVLA intends to take regarding these violations. I expect the DVLA to address these issues appropriately, rather than deflecting the complaint to protect its income stream from this lucrative operator. Given Smart Parking’s breaches of the KADOE contract, I believe that their access to sensitive vehicle keeper data should be reconsidered.
Please find attached the relevant evidence to support my complaint, including the tampered and outdated evidence provided by Smart Parking and the GDPR breach in which personal data from another motorist’s appeal was embedded in mine. I trust that this matter will be handled with the seriousness it deserves.
I look forward to your response, including a full explanation of the actions you will take.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]
How do I go about these complaints ?
And can I demand compensation ?You can demand it, but it's probably unlikely to be forthcoming. A bigger GDPR breach has seemingly been committed against whoever's appeal they're confusing yours with. It does raise the question of whether or not your data has been similarly mis-shared, but getting evidence of that might prove tricky.
It needs a DVLA complaint, a BPA complaint and an ICO complaint.
I do not breastfeed my 16-year-old daughterThere's a line I never thought I'd read on a parking forum.
Initial Summary – Operator’s Complete Failure to Address My Appeal Points
Smart Parking has entirely failed to address the substantive points raised in my original appeal to POPLA, which were critical in challenging the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Instead of responding to these points, they have chosen to submit irrelevant, incorrect, and tampered evidence, which includes an astonishing GDPR breach. In their submission, Smart Parking seems to believe I went shopping with a 6-month-old son and spent the time breastfeeding. Allow me to clarify: I am male, and I do not breastfeed my 16-year-old daughter (who lives two hours away in another city). This level of incompetence would be laughable if it weren’t so utterly unprofessional and unlawful.
It is hard to imagine a more vexatious attempt to extort money from me than this submission, which fails to meet the basic standards required by the BPA Code of Practice. Smart Parking’s blatant disregard for accuracy and their gross mishandling of personal data—pulling someone else’s appeal details into my case—demonstrates nothing short of contempt for the POPLA process and data protection laws.
Given that Smart Parking has not even attempted to engage with or rebut the actual arguments in my appeal, I assert that their evidence is incomplete, unreliable, and fails to meet the required standards of an Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member. Their incompetence and this ridiculous submission should result in the immediate cancellation of the PCN.
1. GDPR Breach and Incompetence
Smart Parking’s submission is not only factually incorrect but also includes irrelevant personal details from another individual's appeal, which is a gross breach of GDPR. The mention of breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child is not only irrelevant to my case but constitutes a serious breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, which requires that personal data be processed in a manner that ensures its security and confidentiality.
This level of incompetence violates several sections of the BPA Code of Practice, including:• Section 23.1(c): Operators must comply with all relevant legislation, including the Data Protection Act (UK GDPR). Including another person's personal data in my case demonstrates a total disregard for data protection laws.
• Section 23.1(a): Operators must act professionally and treat motorists fairly. The inclusion of someone else's details in my appeal shows a fundamental failure in professionalism.
Such a breach of both GDPR and the BPA Code of Practice makes Smart Parking’s evidence fundamentally unreliable and calls into question their fitness as an AOS member. Their mishandling of this case should result in the invalidation of the PCN.
2. Lack of Evidence Regarding Standing
The operator has provided no evidence that they have the right to issue parking charges at this location. While POPLA has, in the past, made the assumption that operators must have a contract simply because signage is present, this is not legally sufficient proof of authority to operate.
The presence of signage does not constitute evidence that the operator has the landowner's authorisation to issue parking charges or pursue these charges through enforcement. It is critical to understand that any party wishing to impose charges on private land must provide strict proof of their legal standing to do so. This requires more than assumptions or generalisations—it requires an unredacted, valid, and up-to-date contract with the landowner.
The BPA Code of Practice clearly states under Section 7.2 that operators must ensure they have written authorisation from the landowner, and this must be produced if challenged. The contract should clearly define:• The land on which the operator may operate, with boundaries clearly specified.
• Any restrictions on hours of operation or parking control.
• Whether the operator is authorised to issue Parking Charge Notices in their own name or merely as an agent of the landowner.
• Whether any exemptions exist, such as for genuine customers or residents.
The contract must also set out the specific authority the operator has to enforce parking terms and the exact amount they are authorised to charge. It is not acceptable for the operator to simply assert that they have authority without producing this document.
In this case, Smart Parking has failed to provide any such contract, and their omission is telling. I challenge POPLA to recognise that without strict proof of an active and valid contract, the operator has no legal standing to enforce parking charges at this site. Any decision based on an assumption that the operator has a contract without seeing actual evidence would be fundamentally flawed and unjust.
Only an unredacted, up-to-date contract between the operator and the landowner that complies with BPA Code of Practice Section 7.3 should be accepted as valid proof. This is a minimum legal requirement, and failure to produce this document undermines the operator's entire case. It is not enough to assume that signage equals authorisation; strict proof is needed to validate the operator’s standing.
3. Operator’s Competence, Integrity, and Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice
Smart Parking’s submission exhibits a profound lack of competence and professionalism, which directly contravenes the standards laid out in the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). Their handling of this appeal is indicative of a broader failure to comply with the BPA CoP in several key areas, which should seriously call into question their ability to operate as an Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member.• BPA CoP Section 2.4 clearly requires that operators must maintain high standards of professional conduct. Smart Parking’s submission, which contains inaccurate, irrelevant, and tampered evidence, shows they have failed to adhere to even the most basic professional standards. The use of evidence from an entirely unrelated appeal, containing personal details from another motorist, is not only grossly unprofessional but represents an utter disregard for data protection laws and the BPA’s own requirements for fair and transparent conduct.
• BPA CoP Section 23.1(a) obliges operators to act professionally and fairly when dealing with motorists. Smart Parking’s failure to respond to the points raised in my appeal and their inclusion of another individual’s personal data demonstrates a clear breach of this obligation. Their handling of the evidence is sloppy at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst.
• BPA CoP Section 23.1(c) also mandates that operators must comply with all relevant legislation, including the UK GDPR and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The inclusion of personal details from another case in my appeal submission constitutes a serious breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, which requires data to be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security. This is not a minor oversight but a significant failure in data management, which I will be reporting to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for investigation.
Further to this, I will also be reporting Smart Parking to the DVLA for serious breaches of the KADOE contract, which governs their access to driver data. Their gross mishandling of personal data in this case is indicative of a systemic failure to meet the conditions required under the KADOE contract, and I will be raising this issue with the DVLA as part of my complaint.
It is important to note that, while POPLA may not consider external reports as part of their assessment, the operator’s gross failure to meet both the legal requirements under GDPR and the BPA CoP standards should not be ignored when assessing their competence and reliability. These breaches demonstrate that the operator lacks the professionalism, competence, and integrity necessary to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices.
For these reasons, and given the operator’s complete failure to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice, the PCN must be cancelled. Smart Parking's conduct, from their mishandling of personal data to their submission of outdated and tampered evidence, shows that they are not fit to operate in accordance with the standards required of an AOS member.
Where are the photos you took when you went back to the site? The links to them do not work anymore. However, the GCV view from March 2022 show that any signs they claim were there in 2017, were not actually there anymore.
Also, the signs they have shown show that they were "created" in November 2017 but "modified" in May 2017. If that is not evidence of tampering, I don't know what else is.
At this point I think Trading Standards need to tell Smart Parking to change their company name, as it is clearly misleading.
@bebu - did you make the point about landowner authority? If so, can you show us what they have provided by way of a contract? Smart used to have serious issues with this, so I'd be interested to see what they've provided.
As I already mentioned, the required entrance signage is in place at the location. However, if parking at the side of the gym, there is no visible signage except the disabled bay notice (at least in March 2022):
(https://i.imgur.com/WiwTOrR.jpeg)
You also need to remember that POPA will not consider anything that isn't a failure to follow the law or the BPA CoP. So anything about anything that is not to do with the operator and whether the PCN was issued correctly, is a waste of your time and effort. Did the operator follow all their legal and CoP requirements correctly. If they did, then the assessor issuing to reject your appeal.
Introduction - my reason to visit the gymThe reason for your visit is irrelevant as to whether or not a contract was formed leading to a parking charge becoming payable. Leave this out.
Above is a google map of direction from my house to the gymIt's not entirely clear why you have included this. It doesn't really support your point around signage in its current form.
3. The reason for my visit: The gym in question ( Pure Gym, in Anlaby Hull) uses automated entries and assistance, as there is no one there to advise you No one at pure gym picks there phones, replies to emails or replies to their facebook and social media accounts.None of this is relevant, I'd leave this out.
AS I said, I cant remember what I said in my 1st appeal, as in my naivity, I thought being a gym member would be straightforward, but I like to believe I owned it was me.
"They" cannot identify the driver unless YOU, the Keeper did so, inadvertently or otherwise. Smart Parking are one of the easiest operators to beat, as long as the driver is not identified by the Keeper. Smart do not issue PoFA compliant PCNs.
So, did you or did you not reveal the identity of the driver when you appealed? Saying things like "I parked..." instead of "The driver parked..." is an example of how to blow the drivers identity inadvertently. Also, when appealing, there is an option to select whether you are appealing as the "driver" or the "keeper" or "other". Which option did you select?
If you have revealed yourself to be the driver, then you cannot rely on their failure to comply with PoFA and you are liable as the driver.
However, looking at GSV images from 2022, the signage appears to be woefully inadequate, or at least it was back then. At the parking are to the side of the gym there is no signage whatsoever. The only visible sign is the in front of the disabled bays.
All the other signs in the car park are small and the wording appears to illegible unless you are standing six inches from the sign. Can you get a close up of the sign so that we can evaluate the wording and whether it is able to form a contract?
I see there is an entrance sign as you drive into the retail park. Have you tried contacting the managing agent for the landowner to ask that they bet the PCN cancelled? You can probably find out who that is by looking at that big advertising plinth by the entrance. Normally, near the bottom, there is information on who either owns or manages the land on there.
If you are interested, have a look at the BPA CoP for the requirements in their signs.
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf
The landowner point should be used but not as the primary point, although, then again, Smart very often do not have valid contracts where they operate.
The landowner point should be used but not as the primary point, although, then again, Smart very often do not have valid contracts where they operate.Even if not as the primary point, definitely include this. As b789 notes, there have historically been issues with their contracts, to the point that Smart often used to withdraw at POPLA where this point was raised.
They havnet identified me as of yet, just a letter to which I have acknowledge in my 1st faulty appeal (In which I did say, I was visiting the gym), which has been rejected.
Moving forward, do you have templates for the other points ?The other points were questions, which you need to answer. Once you've done so we might then be able to advise.
I haven't gone through it fully but simply looking at your appeal points, you have about zero chance of POPLA accepting the appeal on mitigation.
Waffling on about what the Gym has or has not done or their staffing levels is of no consequence and will not be considered. POPLA is only interested in whether the PCN was issued correctly on points of law or the BPA CoP.
So, if the driver is still unidentified, was the PCN POFA compliant? If not, the burden of proof is on the operator to prove that the Keeper was the driver.
Do the signs conform to the requirements of the BPA CoP and do they adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching the terms?
Were the signs able to form a contract with the driver?
Is there a valid contract flowing from the landowner to the operator?
And so on. What the Gym did or did not do is irrelevant.
A couple of general tips for POPLA:[/quote]
- Be detailed. Lead the assessor through each of your points, as if they have no prior knowledge. Leave as little room for misinterpretation as possible and explain exactly why each point means that your appeal should be upheld and the parking charge cancelled.
- Don't write your appeal in the online form. Produce it as a PDF that you will upload to the POPLA system. If you're referencing signage, include photos in-line in your appeal
- Use numbered headings for each of your appeal points to make the appeal easy to follow. Ideally read some other examples, on here and the MSE forum, to get an idea of what a good POPLA appeal looks like.
As this is Smart Parking, I would strongly recommend including a point on landholder authority - in the past, including this has often led to Smart withdrawing from the process, meaning you win. There's an example of how to word such a point below:No evidence of landholder authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
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 “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) 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 on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA 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
No evidence of landholder authority[/quote]
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
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 “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) 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 on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA 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
Apparently, I was there for 5 days in a row, but only got 2. I am not sure, If I stayed below 3 hours in other 3 times, hence future fines are on the way.ANPR is very unreliable, at our works car park it's about 60% effective.
If you have two parking charges then you should have two POPLA codes, as each is appealed separately. Have you appealed both?