This is what i appealed with, it's not the best but it did the job:)
Grounds for Appeal:
1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Who It Is Pursuing Is in Fact the Driver Who May Have Been Potentially Liable for the Charge
3. Inadequate Signage Leading to Failure to Adhere to PoFA 2012 and Breach of the BPA Code of Practice
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
5. Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice General Principles for ANPR
6. Misleading and Predatory Tactics
7. Failure to respond to appeal points
1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
Legislative Requirements:
According to Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), "The notice must be given by... sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."
Incident and Delivery Dates:
• Incident Date: 26/05/2024
• NtK Issued: 06/06/2024
• NtK Deemed Delivered: 10/06/2024
Calculation of Dates:
The statutory requirement for service of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is that it must be delivered to the registered keeper within 14 days of the day after the alleged parking event. The alleged parking incident occurred on 26/05/2024. Therefore, the day after the incident is 27/05/2024. The 14-day period starts from this date, making the last day for delivery 09/06/2024.
The NtK was issued on Thursday 06/06/2024 and deemed delivered two working days later, on Monday 10/06/2024. This is one day past the statutory limit of 14 days.
Conclusion: The NtK has been served outside the 14-day period required by PoFA, which means that liability for the alleged parking charge cannot be transferred from the driver to me, the registered keeper. As I have chosen not to identify the driver, I cannot be held liable for this charge.
2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Who It Is Pursuing Is in Fact the Driver Who May Have Been Potentially Liable for the Charge
Legislative Requirements:
Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) of PoFA 2012, the operator must show that the individual they are pursuing was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
Explanation:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. According to PoFA 2012, the operator must prove that the person they are pursuing was the driver who parked the vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions. The operator has provided no evidence to support this claim.
Conclusion: Without evidence that I was the driver, the operator cannot hold me liable for the parking charge. As the registered keeper, I am under no obligation to identify the driver, and since the operator has not met the burden of proof, the charge must be cancelled.
3. Inadequate Signage Leading to Failure to Adhere to PoFA 2012 and Breach of the BPA Code of Practice
Legislative Requirements:
PoFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice (Appendix B) require that signage is clear and visible so that the terms and conditions of parking are adequately communicated to drivers.
Explanation:
For signage to be considered adequate, it must be:
• Clear and Legible: Signs must be readable from a reasonable distance.
• Placed Prominently: Signs must be located where drivers are likely to see them when entering and parking.
• Comprehensive: Signs must detail all terms and conditions clearly, including any charges and restrictions.
In the location of the alleged contravention, the signage was insufficient and unclear. The signs were either not visible upon entry, obscured, or placed in locations where they could easily be missed by drivers. Moreover, the terms and conditions were not clearly stated, meaning that any contract formed with drivers is invalid.
Conclusion: The operator has failed to provide adequate signage as required by PoFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice. This failure means that drivers are not properly informed of the parking terms, rendering any alleged contract null and void.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
Legislative Requirements:
According to Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, the operator must have written authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges.
Explanation:
The operator must provide strict proof of a chain of authority from the landowner to themselves, including:
• Unredacted Contracts: Evidence of an agreement between the landowner and the operator authorizing the issuance of PCNs.
• Scope of Authority: Details of the specific authority granted, including the definition of the land, enforcement boundaries, times, and any restrictions or exemptions.
• Enforcement Rights: Clarification of whether the operator has the right to issue charges in their own name or merely act as an agent.
The operator has not provided any such evidence. In the absence of proof of authority, the operator lacks the legal standing to enforce the charge.
Conclusion: Without a valid contract with the landowner, the operator cannot pursue charges. This is a fundamental requirement under the BPA Code of Practice, and failure to meet this requirement invalidates the charge.
5. Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice General Principles for ANPR
Legislative Requirements:
The BPA Code of Practice Section 21.3 requires that ANPR systems are properly maintained, ensuring that data collected is accurate.
Explanation:
The operator must demonstrate that their ANPR system:
• Is Regularly Maintained: Ensuring the system is functioning correctly.
• Provides Accurate Data: Validating the accuracy of the captured vehicle registration numbers and the timings.
The operator has not provided evidence that their ANPR system meets these standards. This includes maintenance logs, accuracy tests, and calibration records. Without this evidence, the reliability of the ANPR data used to issue the PCN is questionable.
Conclusion: The operator has not proven that their ANPR system is accurate and well-maintained, as required by the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore, the PCN issued based on ANPR data is unreliable and should be cancelled.
6. Misleading and Predatory Tactics
Legislative Requirements:
The BPA Code of Practice Section 14 prohibits operators from using predatory tactics to issue PCNs and requires transparency in enforcement practices.
Explanation:
The operator's use of ANPR technology combined with inadequate signage constitutes predatory behaviour. The following points highlight this:
• Lack of Clear Signage: Signs were not prominently placed or were difficult to read, leading to unintentional contraventions by drivers.
• No Proper Notification: Drivers were not adequately informed about the use of ANPR technology and the implications of parking in the area.
Such tactics are designed to catch drivers unaware, which is expressly prohibited by the BPA Code of Practice. The intention behind these practices appears to be to maximize revenue rather than enforce genuine parking management.
Conclusion: The operator's actions constitute predatory tactics aimed at exploiting drivers, which is against BPA guidelines. This invalidates the PCN issued.
7. Failure to Respond to Appeal Points
Legislative Requirements:
The BPA Code of Practice Section 22 requires operators to respond to all points raised in an appeal comprehensively and fairly.
Explanation:
In my initial appeal, I raised several specific points concerning the compliance of the NtK with PoFA, inadequate signage, and the use of ANPR technology. Group Nexus did not address these points in their rejection letter, which indicates a failure to consider my appeal properly. This lack of due process is against the BPA Code of Practice requirements, which mandate a thorough and fair consideration of appeals.
Conclusion: Group Nexus has failed to respond to the points raised in my appeal, demonstrating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. This lack of due process invalidates the PCN.
Conclusion
Given the multiple failures by Group Nexus to adhere to statutory requirements and BPA guidelines, the Parking Charge Notice issued is invalid. I request POPLA to consider the clear breaches outlined above and cancel the Parking Charge Notice accordingly
