Updated to try and make the "double dip" my main point:
1. The Operator Has Failed to Prove a Single Continuous Parking Event
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and submit this appeal in that capacity.
The Operator's case relies entirely upon two ANPR images recording a vehicle entering and exiting the site. From those two isolated timestamps, the Operator asks POPLA to infer that a single continuous parking event occurred.
I dispute that inference.
In my original appeal to the Operator, I specifically advised that the vehicle entered and exited the site on more than one occasion within a short timeframe and requested that the Operator review its full ANPR records, including any unmatched or orphan captures.
Despite this, the Operator's subsequent correspondence failed to address the point. The rejection letter contains no discussion of the multiple-visit issue and provides no evidence that any investigation of additional ANPR records was undertaken.
ANPR systems record vehicles passing camera locations. They do not record whether a vehicle was parked, where it was parked, how long it remained stationary, or whether multiple visits occurred during the relevant period.
The Operator has produced no evidence demonstrating:
* that all ANPR captures relating to the vehicle were reviewed;
* that multiple entry and exit events were excluded;
* that orphan or unmatched records were checked;
* that the timestamps relied upon represent a single continuous stay rather than separate visits.
The Operator's case therefore depends entirely upon an assumption that the two ANPR images relied upon represent a single continuous parking event.
I submit that this has not been proven.
Where a specific challenge regarding multiple visits has been raised and the Operator has failed to demonstrate that the issue was investigated, POPLA cannot safely conclude that the ANPR evidence establishes a single continuous period of parking.
Accordingly, the alleged contravention has not been proven.
2. The Notice to Keeper Does Not Establish Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
The Operator seeks to pursue me as Registered Keeper.
As I have not identified the driver, the Operator must demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
The Notice to Keeper relies upon ANPR-generated "From" and "To" timestamps.
However, PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking.
Entry and exit timestamps merely record vehicle movements past camera locations. They do not identify a period of parking.
The Operator has not demonstrated that the requirements of Schedule 4 have been met and therefore has not established keeper liability.
Accordingly, the charge cannot be enforced against me as Registered Keeper.
3. The Operator Has Not Proven Any Actual Period of Parking
Even if POPLA were satisfied that keeper liability has been established, the Operator must still prove that a parking contravention occurred.
The evidence supplied consists only of ANPR entry and exit timestamps showing a total site presence of approximately 13 minutes.
Those timestamps do not establish:
* when parking commenced;
* when parking ended;
* whether the vehicle was parked at all;
* how much time was spent driving within the site;
* whether the driver was locating signage, turning around, or exiting.
The Notice to Keeper itself refers only to ANPR-derived "From" and "To" times and does not identify any separately evidenced period of parking.
The Operator has therefore failed to prove the duration of any actual parking event.
4. Failure to Properly Consider the Appeal and Submitted Evidence
After receiving my appeal, the Operator requested additional information.
The Operator directed that this material be submitted via its online portal.
The portal did not permit the requested upload and the material was therefore submitted by email instead.
Despite this, the Operator's rejection letter states:
"As this information has not been received within the specified timeframe..."
The rejection letter contains no acknowledgement of the emailed submission and no discussion of the substantive issues raised.
Furthermore, the Operator's earlier correspondence referred to "emergency circumstances" allegedly raised in my appeal despite no such circumstances having been mentioned.
The subsequent rejection letter also included wording stating:
"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver can make the appeal to POPLA."
The site concerned is located in England.
These inaccuracies raise legitimate concerns as to whether the appeal was individually reviewed and whether the specific points raised were properly considered.
Whilst I do not rely upon this as a standalone ground of appeal, it is relevant when assessing the weight that should be attached to the Operator's unsupported assertion that it investigated and verified its ANPR evidence.
5. Inadequate Evidence of Contract Formation
The Operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent and legible to bring the contractual terms to the attention of motorists before any contract was formed.
The Operator must demonstrate that:
* signage was clearly visible on entry;
* signage was prominent throughout the site;
* the terms were capable of being read and understood before any contractual agreement was formed.
Absent such proof, no contract can be established.
6. Operator Authority
The Operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to:
* manage parking at this site;
* issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name;
* pursue unpaid charges; and
* defend appeals relating to those charges.
As the Operator is not the landowner, I require it to demonstrate that it possesses sufficient authority to undertake these activities at the material location.
Conclusion
The Operator has failed to prove that a single continuous parking event occurred.
The Operator has failed to address or investigate the specific multiple-visit issue raised in the original appeal.
The Operator has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012.
The Operator has failed to prove any actual period of parking.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
