As this should be a fairly straightforward appeal to POPLA try the following:
POPLA ref: 123456789
UKPC ref: 123456789 Vehicle registration: AB12CDE
I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle and I dispute the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
(1) The driver denies parking on double yellow lines or hatched area.
(2) Failure to comply with the BPA CoP section 21.5a.
(3) No evidence of landholder authority.
(1)
The driver denies parking on double yellow lines or hatched area.The operator is put to strict proof that the driver of the vehicle parked on double yellow lines or hatched are at the location. The keeper has seen no evidence to prove the allegation in the Notice to Keeper (NtK).
(2)
Failure to comply with the BPA CoP section 21.5a.The operator has altered or cropped the evidential phot in the NtK in breach of BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a which clearly states:
Use of Photographic Evidence
21.5a Photographic evidence must not be used by you 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 applied at the point the picture was taken;
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 time-stamp and the risk of keying errors.
Alteration of photographic evidence
You must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other than:
e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with your GDPR obligations; or
f) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed.
This point was upheld in a recent POPLA appeal by assessor Gayle Stanton:
POPLA code: 2413353469
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.
(3)
No evidence of landholder authority.The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator.
It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court 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 case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
This POPLA appeal highlights serious omissions and failures by the operator which show that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. There is no evidence of the allegation made in the NtK that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines or a hatched area. The evidential photo in the NtK has been altered or cropped which is a clear breach of the BPA CoP section 21.5a and the operator has not shown tat it has any authority to issue PCNs in its own name on behalf of the landowner.
These points prove that the PCN has been issued incorrectly and the POPLA assessor should take them into account when making their assessment of the validity of the charge.
