Before I send everything off can you satisfy my curiosity about this ?
Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
In addition, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):
Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK fails to specify the required "period of parking." Relying solely on ANPR timestamps of entry and exit does not meet the requirement of providing a clear and defined period of parking.
Has the parking company covered this by their claim that the driver was parked for 649 mins (shown on the notice) ? Thanks in advance
Use the following for the appeal, only as the Keeper:
Registered Keeper Appeal – PCN Reference [Insert PCN Reference]
As the Keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference [Insert PCN reference], issued on 10th October 2024. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and will not be providing any such details.
This PCN pertains to an alleged contravention on 30th September 2024 at [Insert Car Park Location]. However, this is a case of a "double-dip" error, where your Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system has failed to accurately log the vehicle's first exit and second entry.
On the day in question, the vehicle made two separate visits to the car park:
• First visit: approximately 8:22am
• Second visit: approximately 7:11pm
Your system has erroneously treated these two distinctly separate visits as a single continuous stay, leading to the issuance of this PCN. Your failure to properly check the ANPR data for "orphan images"—that is, missing entry or exit records—demonstrates a lack of the necessary manual quality control.
Failure to Comply with IPC Code of Practice
According to Section 14.5 of the IPC Code of Practice (v9, January 2024), operators using ANPR technology must conduct appropriate checks to ensure that Parking Charges are only issued when there is Reasonable Cause to believe a charge is due. This includes performing manual checks to ensure that ANPR data is accurate and that errors, such as "double-dip" events, are identified and corrected.
In this instance, it is clear that such checks were either not performed or were inadequate. As required by the IPC Code of Practice, you must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check before the PCN was issued. Should this PCN not be cancelled, I will be requiring that you provide evidence of this quality check, including the name of the person responsible for conducting it.
Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
In addition, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):
Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK fails to specify the required "period of parking." Relying solely on ANPR timestamps of entry and exit does not meet the requirement of providing a clear and defined period of parking.
Paragraph 9(2)(f): Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, the NtK states:
"We may assume you to be the driver and you may incur further charges."
This is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA. According to Paragraph 9(2)(f), the NtK must inform the registered keeper that they will be held liable for the unpaid parking charge if the charge is not paid and if the operator does not know the name and address of the driver. PoFA does not allow the assumption that the keeper is the driver, nor does it mention further charges in this context.
The correct wording required by PoFA 9(2)(f) is that the operator will have the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from the keeper, not that the keeper will be assumed to be the driver. This misstatement renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA and invalid for holding the keeper liable.
Unlawful Use of My DVLA Data
As a result of these failures, I will be making a formal complaint to the DVLA regarding this breach of the IPC Code of Practice. Since there was no Reasonable Cause for you to request my personal data from the DVLA, this also constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract, and my data was therefore obtained unlawfully.
Additionally, I reserve the right to take action for the breach of my GDPR rights under the Data Protection Act 2018 due to the unlawful request and use of my personal data.
Conclusion
Given the double-dip error, the lack of proper manual checks, the non-compliance with both the IPC Code of Practice and PoFA, and the unlawful request for my data, this Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled immediately.
Should you choose to reject this appeal, I will not hesitate escalate this matter.
I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.
A formal complaint to G24 (not an appeal) should also be made.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
G24 Ltd
[Their Address]
Subject: Formal Complaint – Unlawful DVLA Data Request and Breach of GDPR and KADOE Contract
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN reference], issued to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle in relation to an alleged contravention on 30th September 2024 at [Insert Car Park Location].
This PCN was issued based on ANPR evidence that misrepresents the facts due to a "double-dip" error. The driver made two separate visits to the location on the day in question: one at 8:22am and another at 7:11pm. Your system erroneously treated these two separate visits as a single continuous stay.
Failure to Comply with IPC Code of Practice
Under Section 14.5 of the IPC Code of Practice (v9, January 2024), operators using ANPR technology must carry out appropriate checks before issuing a Parking Charge Notice, ensuring that charges are issued only where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a contravention has occurred. This includes performing checks for "orphan images", where entry or exit data might not be correctly attributed to a vehicle due to system errors.
In this case, the required manual quality control checks were not performed. The ANPR system has recorded the images of the vehicle's first exit and second entry, but your operator has failed to apply these "orphan images" to the vehicle's registration, resulting in a misleading assumption of continuous parking. This failure to perform the necessary manual checks violates the IPC Code of Practice.
As the IPC Code requires, I request you provide evidence of the quality check performed before issuing the PCN, including the name of the individual responsible for verifying the ANPR data. The absence of proper checks means you did not have Reasonable Cause to issue the PCN.
Unlawful Request for Keeper Data
Because of these failures, you did not have Reasonable Cause to request my data from the DVLA, constituting a breach of the KADOE contract. You accessed my personal information unlawfully, and I will be making a formal complaint to the DVLA.
Furthermore, I reserve the right to take action for this GDPR breach under the Data Protection Act 2018, as the unlawful request for my personal data was not justified.
Conclusion
Please confirm that this Parking Charge Notice will be cancelled, and provide a formal response to this complaint, detailing how the double-dip error occurred and how your team will rectify such failures in the future. This formal response is essential as I will also be escalating the matter to the ICO.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper of the Vehicle