Free Traffic Legal Advice

...ANPR Camera Transparency: The use of ANPR cameras was not clearly signposted, failing to meet the BPA Code's clear signage requirements

And the evidence is?

A sign posted by the OP stating '...CEL monitor compliance with these terms and conditions using ANPR...'

The BPA CoP which states at 22.1 ANPR that..

..your signs must tell drivers you are using this technology and what you will use the data ...for'

So what's the basis of this claim in the appeal?

And every other point which is not supported by evidence. CEL are not going to do your work for you: if you wish to assert then you must have evidence in support IMO.

In the wacky world of POPLA it is tactically advantageous to raise points without supporting evidence, provided you're not in possession of evidence which actually disproves your point. 


But the OP is, they posted a clear photo of a sign stating the use of ANPR in its Ts and Cs. Also, I suspect that the OP actually thinks they've got substantive defence grounds and that they're not simply setting out a smorgasbord of matters which might have no merit in the hope that something might strike a chord with POPLA.

And as regards the shotgun approach, IMO it is not necessary to assert matters on which an appellant has no info. There is nothing wrong with an opening statement to the effect that the assessor will of course want to satisfy themselves (prior to considering the specific issues in this case) that the BPA CoP pre-conditions of compliance have been met by the Operator, paras. 7, 14 and 19 CoP* apply.

A simple but IMO comprehensive (other paras. can be added) intro which creates the opportunity to examine the operator's evidence once submitted. 


*- version which applied at the time, but may have changed in the Feb. 2024 version.

They rejected the appeal stating that there were signs that included ANPR warnings and that 83% of POPLA appeals lose.

So I think I should just pay the £60...

Tempted to pay £57 fine as I already paid £3 for parking...

THEIR RESPONSE:

Signs in the above car park clearly advise payment for parking must be made within 20 minutes of
arrival and on this occasion you failed to do so.
There are many clear and visible signs displayed on the site advising drivers of the regulations in force
and we maintain a continuous log confirming that the signage remains in place.
It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they adhere to the parking terms.
The charge that has been levied is clearly stated on the signage around the site. Furthermore, it falls
within the British Parking Association's recommended guidelines for car park enforcement.
The signs displayed throughout the car park do comply with the GDPR regulation and clearly state ''We
use manual patrols and ANPR cameras to monitor this private property and may contact DVLA to
request the Registered Keeper's details
Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or on-street, motorists should
always park properly and always check any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand
the rules that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in order to acquaint
themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for parking.
18890732519
The signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where they parked, they simply must be
placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them (BPA Code of Practice,
p9.2, and see also BPA Code of Practice, 19.3).

You are dealing with an unregulated private parking company formed by a bunch of ex-clamper scammers who rely on low hanging fruit on the gullible tree for their income. The decision whether to pay or to fight is down to you.

You now have an opportunity to appeal to POPLA. Even if you lose at POPLA, the fight is not necessarily over. A POPLA decision is not binding and has no bearing on a Plan D court hearing where a judge would ultimately decide whether you owe CEL a debt or not.

Did they offer you the bribe discounted sum when they rejected your Plan B appeal? Offering to pay them £57 will not be accepted by them.

Here are a few suggestions that should be included in your POPLA appeal if you decide to fight this:

Your POPLA appeal will focus on issues with the signage. It is apparent from your original post that you were not made aware of the terms of parking due to deficiencies with the signage. You will put CEL to strict proof that any signs were prominent, conspicuous, written in intelligible language, easy to read, see and understand. There must be adequate notice of the sum charged and that it was brought to the attention of the driver as required by PoFA. In this case the sum of the charge is in a much smaller font to the information that precedes it. (on a sign that you did not notice until later)

You said that when entering the location, on one side is free parking and on the other it is controlled by CEL. You need to put CEL to strict proof that the signage on entry complies to the BPA CoP and that it is not possible to mistakenly park where you did, only realising later that you were in the controlled side of the car park.

Their use of ANPR is hidden in the small print of the sign you showed us. It is not transparent. They should have conspicuous notification, preferably by use of a logo and prominent wording that ANPR technology is in use as per the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Code of Practice. Also, the ICO has guidelines on ANPR use that states that there must be "clear and prominent signage in place to inform individuals that ANPR is in use, with sufficient detail about who to contact if they have a query". The sign we have seen fails that requirement.

BPA CoP v8 S22.1 (at time of event) "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for".

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf

You will put CEL to strict proof, if they are not the landowner, to provide evidence of an unredacted contract with or flowing from the landowner that clearly indicates the land enforcement boundary they are authorised to operate. Also, you require CEL to provide evidence that the landowner authorises them to issue parking charges in their own name.

It cannot be assumed, just because CEL is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that they are authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge 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 issue in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case you should suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Edited to add: Are the images in the NtK time stamped? It is difficult to see. If they are not, then there is an extra point you can use in your POPLA appeal.

Hence why I would be interested in C_H_R_I_S sharing a redacted copy of the correspondence claiming this (an aside to any appeal, I appreciate)

They don't strictly claim that 83% of POPLA appeals fail. They claim that 83% of POPLA appeals involving CEL fail.

The figures in the report do, however, state 83% of appeals received or 25% of those decided. It appears about 35% get withdrawn.

Thanks but For the stress and uncertainty im afraid they win this time.

If I heard y'all saying I had a great case I wouldve fought but for now their business wins :/