Free Traffic Legal Advice

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

• The signage is inadequate
• The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
• The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so there is no keeper liability.
• The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing is the driver.
• No landowner authority
• Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA).
• No evidence of the period parked.
• Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA.
• The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate.

The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and they have commented on the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments that although the operator has provided full date stamped photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not compliant.

I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK.

The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also not very clear. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

8. Vehicle images contained in NTK: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The only evidence provided for the alleged contravention, which appears to hinge on a matter of minutes, is based on images from an ANPR camera. The images provided in the NTK are not compliant with the BPA code of practice.

The BPA Code of Practice point 21.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer
to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included
on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The NTK in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” and they do not show what the vehicle was doing (they don’t show the vehicle at all!). It is plain that they do not clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving this car park, and they could come from any location.

A date and time is given on the NTK above (but not part of) the images. The images have presumably been cropped (i.e., digitally altered, which is expressly forbidden in the BPA Code of Practice above). As such they are not the original images. I require Euro Car Parks to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated

MB did reject the initial appeal, I can't understand why - it's almost like they're financially incentivised to reject appeals or something.