If it is a classic case of a "double dip" where the first exit and the second entry ANPR images have not been identified, then you appeal and also complain (separately) that MET have breached the Joint Code of Practice (CoP) at 7.3(d) which states:
7.3. Use of photographic evidence
Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a
parking charge unless:
a) at least one of the images captured includes a clear record of the vehicle’s VRM to
which the parking charge is deemed to apply;
b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp;
c) the image(s) show, where appropriate, the pay and display tariff receipt as displayed
or not being visible; and
d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control
check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.
Note 1 states:
The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary.
So, because an obvious manual quality control check has not been performed as required by the CoP, they have not allocated the "orphan images" to the VRM. This breach of the CoP means that they have breached the KADOE contract with the DVLA and unlawfully requested the Keeper data. This is a breach of the Keepers GDPR and you can sue MET for compensation under the Data Protection Act 2018.
The appeal need only concentrate on the failure of the CoP. I don't think there is any advantage in this case relying on PoFA. If the Keeper does not know who was driving then that is OK and they should say so. However, the NtK is more or less PoFA compliant so there is no mileage in that argument.
Here is a suggested appeal:
Formal Appeal - Incorrectly Issued PCN and Breach of CoP 7.3(d)
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle [VRM] regarding the parking charge notice [PCN Reference Number] issued for an alleged overstay at McDonald's Hanwell on 6th October 2024.
The PCN has been issued incorrectly. Your ANPR system failed to properly process the vehicle’s entries and exits, resulting in a false allegation of overstaying. The vehicle did not remain on site for the full duration claimed. Instead, your system missed key images from the first exit and second entry, leaving two orphan images unassigned to the VRM.
Breach of CoP 7.3(d)
Your failure to conduct the mandatory manual quality control check required under section 7.3(d) of the New Joint Code of Practice (CoP) is a clear breach. This breach renders the PCN invalid, and it must be cancelled immediately.
Unlawful Data Request
Furthermore, this breach highlights that you had no lawful basis to request my personal data from the DVLA, as compliance with the CoP forms part of the KADOE contract. While I do not expect you to admit to this wrongdoing, be aware that I am fully aware of the legal implications of your actions.
Evidence and "Orphan" ANPR Images
I require the following:
1. Proof that a manual quality control check was performed on the ANPR images for this PCN.
2. The missing "orphan" ANPR images of the vehicle’s first exit and second entry, which would clearly show that no overstay occurred.
The PCN is invalid because you failed to meet the Joint CoP requirements. Whether or not you provide the requested evidence, this PCN must be cancelled because it is based on incorrect data and a breach of the CoP.
Should you reject this appeal, you must provide a POPLA code so I can escalate the matter. However, given the clear invalidity of the PCN, it would be in your best interest to cancel it at this stage.
The separate, formal complaint, is important as it establishes that MET have obtained the keepers data unlawfully and is liable for the breach of the keepers GDPR. Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately. If a data controller, such as a private parking company, unlawfully obtains the keeper's data from the DVLA and issues an invoice based on inaccurate information, claiming you parked in breach of an alleged contract with the landowner (or their agent), this constitutes processing your personal data inaccurately and unlawfully under the UK GDPR.
The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing of personal data can be found in cases like
Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333, where the court awarded compensation for distress caused by the inaccurate processing of personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998. Although this case was decided under the old law, similar principles apply under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, individuals have the right to compensation if they suffer material or non-material damage because of a breach of data protection laws.
Additionally, the case of
Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 confirmed that claimants could recover compensation for distress alone under the Data Protection Act 1998, a principle now similarly recognised under the GDPR. This means that even if you have not suffered tangible financial loss, you may still be entitled to compensation for distress caused by the unlawful processing of your data.
Moreover, in
Tetragon Financial Group Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKUT 0305 (TCC), the court reiterated the importance of accurate data handling by public bodies. This principle can be applied here, as the DVLA, a public body, must ensure that any data it provides to third parties, such as private parking companies, is used lawfully and accurately. If a private parking company unlawfully obtained your data from the DVLA and processed it inaccurately, you have grounds to seek compensation.
To seek compensation for the unlawful processing of your personal data, you should provide 21 days’ notice (the pre-action protocol typically requires 14 days, but a longer notice can show goodwill) to the data controller, in this case, the private parking company, of your intention to claim damages. You might claim £100 for nominal damages under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This notice should clearly state that you will file a claim with the County Court if they do not confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within 14 days. Be sure to mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings."
As a litigant-in-person, you can file your claim under Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (often referred to as the "Small Claims Court"). Each party is responsible for their own legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and the claim can be filed online for a fee of £35 via the Money Claim Online service (moneyclaimonline.gov.uk). The successful party can recover their court fees, making the total claim amount £135.
)in the following line:Quote
Winner x 1
View List