Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi and thank you for reading.

I didn't realise this forum existed and made a representation myself via email. Hopefully this is not going to ruin my defense. If it does, then I will be solely to blame!

On 02/10/2024 I went to a private car parked managed by UK Parking Administration Ltd, Cable Depot SE18 5NX. I will post pictures of the signage tomorrow as I am due back in the area.

I dropped my car off to a mechanic there who has a premises there in the industrial estate at 11:17 where he was installing my car radio. I left him with the keys and he called me at 13:39 to say it was ready. (I have screenshots of the telephone call history). I took an Uber and arrived there at roughly 14:02. I spoke with the mechanic, he showed me what he had done, and that it was working. We ran a few tests. I paid him and then I left at 14:15.

I received the following Parking Charge Notice:

For what it's worth they misspelt my name on the letter to me (got my first name wrong by one letter)

Page 1


Page 2


I wrote an appeal explaining I was a paying customer of services at the car park. I do not seem to have kept a copy of it, I used their form online.

They responded to me offering me a reduction in the fee to £20.00 if paid within 14 days. Or I could go to POPLA.

Response:


Any advice would be greatly appreciated. As I said, I will be taking pictures of the signage tomorrow evening.

Thanks

Not yet, I will.

I hesitated because I am not sure how helpful he might be, just the vibe I got off the guy. But I will send him a message tomorrow and see if he can help verify with UKPA that works were being carried out on the vehicle during that time.

Cheers

I tried calling him and he didn't answer. I sent a whatsapp and he's not read the messages.

I will go back there tonight and get images of his business (which may be closed for the day) as well as the signage. I have a feeling he's either subletting or there's some other dodgy arrangement going on. I did not get a receipt for the works. Silly me

Interesting that there are two separate companies mentioned in the signage. UKPA Ltd and HOZAH LTD. When crafting an appeal or potential court defence in relation to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Administration Ltd (UKPA) at the Bloc Cable Depot, several critical issues would need to be highlighted. These range from conflicting signage between UKPA and Hozah Ltd to inadequate notification about Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) entry and the implications of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015).

1. Conflicting Information Between UKPA Ltd and Hozah Ltd:

The signage at the location presents conflicting information about the operation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. UKPA's signs prominently state that ANPR is in operation without specifying whether it is UKPA or Hozah Ltd managing the system. The Hozah Ltd privacy policy sign, however, indicates that Hozah operates the ANPR system, as it explicitly states they are responsible for processing vehicle registration data.

The NtK sent by UKPA Ltd makes no mention of Hozah Ltd, despite the fact that Hozah appears to play a key role in capturing and processing the data that led to the issuance of the PCN. This lack of clarity and transparency regarding the actual parties involved in the processing of the data directly undermines the requirements for a valid contract. The driver cannot reasonably be expected to understand the terms of parking or the parties responsible if this information is not properly disclosed.

Under the CRA 2015 Section 62 – Unfair Terms, contractual terms must be fair and transparent. The failure to clearly disclose the relationship between UKPA Ltd and Hozah Ltd, particularly with respect to who is managing the ANPR data, probably renders the contract terms unfair and non-transparent under the Act. The driver is entitled to know which entity is processing their personal data and under what conditions, which is not clearly communicated in the signage or NtK.

2. Lack of Notification About VRM Entry Requirement:

The additional sign at the location requests that customers "enter their registration on the tablet inside," yet none of the main contractual signs outlining the terms and conditions make any mention of this requirement. This is a critical omission, as the failure to enter a VRM into the tablet has resulted in the driver being unknowingly in breach of the parking terms.

The separation of these signs from the main contractual signage, combined with their lack of operator details and accreditation, creates ambiguity. Drivers may not reasonably believe that such signs carry any authority or impose enforceable obligations.

The driver in this case left the vehicle with a mechanic at the location and was not informed of the need to enter the VRM. The PCN was issued to the keeper for "non payment" but if the VRM entry is a necessary condition for validating parking or avoiding a charge, this should have been clearly communicated both on the signs and by the mechanic.

Parking operators must take reasonable care to ensure that drivers are adequately informed of the parking terms. The absence of any reference to VRM entry on the main contractual signs, combined with the failure to communicate this to the driver when they left their vehicle with the mechanic, should be seen as a failure to act with reasonable care and skill, thus breaching the CRA 2015  Section 49.

3. Inadequate and Misleading Signage:

The primary signage at the car park makes no mention of the VRM entry requirement or the involvement of Hozah Ltd in the ANPR operation. This lack of clarity creates confusion for the driver about what steps they need to take to comply with the parking terms.

The new Single Code of Practice (SCoP) requires that signage conveying important contractual terms is prominent, clear, and easy to read. However, the requirement to enter the VRM is only mentioned on a small, separate sign that could easily be missed. The failure to include this in the main signage is likely to cause drivers to unknowingly breach the terms, particularly when there is no clear explanation of the consequences of not entering the VRM.

4. Inconsistencies in Data Responsibility (UKPA Ltd vs Hozah Ltd):

One of the signs states that UKPA is the data controller, yet the Hozah privacy policy states that Hozah Ltd is processing the data collected via the ANPR system. This contradiction introduces confusion about which entity is responsible for the accuracy and lawful processing of the data used to enforce the parking charge.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 require that the roles and responsibilities of data controllers and processors are clearly defined and communicated to data subjects (i.e., drivers). The conflicting signs at the location create uncertainty over who is responsible for the processing of the driver’s personal data, which amounts to a breach of GDPR requirements regarding transparency and lawful processing.

The CRA 2015 Section 68 – Transparency of Terms – also requires that terms in consumer contracts are transparent and understandable. The conflicting information regarding the operation of ANPR and data processing undermines the transparency of the contract, as the driver cannot clearly understand who is responsible for enforcing the parking charge and handling their data.

5. Grounds for Appeal or Defence:

The conflicting information between UKPA Ltd and Hozah Ltd, combined with the lack of a clear requirement to enter the VRM into a tablet, creates significant ambiguity in the terms of the parking contract. This ambiguity makes the contract unenforceable, as the driver cannot be expected to comply with terms that are not clearly communicated.

Under the CRA 2015, the terms of the parking contract must be fair, transparent, and communicated in a way that the consumer can reasonably understand. The combination of unclear signage, missing information about VRM entry, and conflicting information about data processing render the terms unfair and non-transparent, making them unenforceable under the Act.

The signage and communication at the location appear to fall short of the standards required by the new Single Code of Practice (SCoP), particularly in terms of transparency and clarity. UKPA Ltd has failed to provide adequate notice of the key terms of parking, specifically the need to enter the VRM and the parties responsible for processing ANPR data.

6. Conclusion and Appeal Strategy:

Highlight the confusion caused by the conflicting roles of UKPA and Hozah Ltd regarding ANPR data collection and processing, and the failure to mention Hozah Ltd in the NtK.

Emphasise that the main contractual signs made no mention of the requirement to enter the VRM into a tablet, making the PCN unfair as the driver was not given clear and adequate notice of the terms.

Reference the CRA 2015’s requirements for transparency and fairness, as well as the SCoP’s obligations to provide clear, readable signage. The conflicting and missing information on the signs is a breach of these requirements.

Point out that the driver, having left the vehicle with a mechanic, was not informed of the VRM requirement and could not be reasonably expected to comply with this undisclosed condition.

The separate signs do not include the UKPA’s name or the BPA logo. These signs cannot form part of the contractual agreement, meaning that the PCN issued for "non payment" (based on the failure to enter the VRM) is not enforceable. This is a clear breach of the SCoP and adds to the overall case that the terms were not properly communicated to the driver.

By combining these points, you should be able to present a compelling case that the PCN is not enforceable due to the ambiguity of the contract terms, lack of transparency, and breaches of the CRA 2015 and the new Single Code of Practice.

No appeal to UKPA is ever long to be accepted by them. No money in it for them. Do not think for a moment you are dealing with some honourable company with a public facing customer service ethos. These are ex-clamper thugs operating what is basically a licence to scam.

Your initial appeal has been rejected. You have 33 days from the date of rejection to submit a POPLA appeal. POPLA will not consider any mitigation so don’t attempt any. They look solely at whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the BPB Code OF practice (CoP) and the law.

Put together something and show us so that we can see and advise on.

You go through their operator response pack and highlight each point that you made in your appeal that they have not responded to or rebutted.

The point is to show the operator has not issued the PCN correctly. You only have to win on a single point. They have to rebut each point of argument you made in your POPLA appeal.

You cannot introduce new evidence but you should respond as above.

Hi

Thanks for your help. I was unsuccessful. Probably didn't do the appeal properly, but thank you for your help.

It's insane that I was a genuine customer at the mechanics and still got fined...

I have included the response from POPLA in case it can help anyone with any future challenges:

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site for two hours and 57 minutes on the day of the parking event. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The appellant states that the signage is not compliant with the Single Code of Practice. The operator has indicated in the case file that it is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so I will be assessing the case using this.

Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator and the appellant have provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice. The signage on the site clearly advises that payment is required and this is supported by the appellant’s images as well.

I have reviewed the appellant’s images of the signs within the premises however the terms and conditions apply to all users of the site including patrons. Therefore, if there was an exemption for genuine customers this would be displayed on the signage. In this instance it is users of this site who are expected to comply with these terms and conditions and that payment is required via Hozah.

While I note the appellant’s comments regarding Hozah, this is a parking services company, which allows payment for parking to be made at certain facilities. While the operator allows payments to be made via this method, it bears no responsibility for the service. The parking operator is UK Parking Administration and not Hozah therefore there no requirement for Hozah’s details to be included on the PCN. The parking contract undertaken at the site is between the operator and the motorist, not with third party organisations at the site and the operator has been employed by the landowner. The landowner and any retail businesses located on the site are usually separate entities, and the terms of the site are agreed between the landowner and the parking operator. The responsibility is that of the motorist to ensure that the terms and conditions at the site have been understood and agreed prior to entering into a contract with the operator.

It is important to note that employees at the facilities are not obligated to bring the terms and conditions detailed on the signage offered to the public’s attention, the onus is on the motorist to make themselves aware of the contract that they are entering into with the parking operator. Further, if the appellant was unsure or had any query about the information given to them this could have been queried this with the parking operator directly using the number on the signage in order to provide the assurance needed directly from the parking operator that manages the site and not a member of staff employed at the facilities. Any dispute that the appellant has in respect of the information or advice given by a member of staff on the date in question would be a third party dispute to pursue outside POPLA’s appeal service.

Section 17 of the Code recognises that drivers are more frequently required to enter their vehicle registration when paying for parking or registering for a permit. Section 17.4B requires the parking operator to have a process for dealing with major keying errors. Where the motorist has proven they were a legitimate user, it requires the parking operator to offer to reduce the amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. In this case the operator has acknowledged that the appellant was a legitimate user on the site and offered tor reduce the charge to £20 on 16 October 2024.

The appellant has provided a copy of this letter and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Section 17.4B in this case. The appellant has declined this offer and appealed to POPLA. The appellant has advised in the comments that the operator has not rebutted their grounds of appeal however I am satisfied that the information the operator has provided sufficiently rebuts the appellant’s grounds of appeal. The appellant may need to contact the operator directly if they require any further clarification.

After considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and the driver failed to make payment and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Thank you so much once again.

Sorry, I thought the decision was binding. I am a bit clueless about this stuff, so really appreciate your help here.

There was some more information I left off:

Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on the site and the driver failed to make payment.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: There is confusion caused by the conflicting roles of, and Hozah Ltd regarding, ANPR data collection and processing, and the failure to mention Hozah Ltd in the NtK. The main signs did not mention the requirement to enter the VRN into a tablet, making the PCN unfair. The CRA 2015 sets out requirements for transparency and fairness, as well as the SCoP’s obligations to provide clear, readable signage; the conflicting and missing information on the signs is a breach of these requirements.

Furthermore, the driver, having left the vehicle with a mechanic, was not informed of the VRM requirement and could not be reasonably expected to comply with this undisclosed condition. The separate signs do not include the UKPA’s name or the BPA logo. As a result, these signs cannot form part of the contractual agreement, meaning that the PCN issued for "non payment" (based on the failure to enter the VRM) is not enforceable. This constitutes a clear breach of the SCoP and reinforces the overall argument that the terms were not properly communicated to the driver.

In the comments, the appellant advised that the operator failed to address four of the five points raised, adding that this is a very predatory practice aimed at preying on unsuspecting customers of the businesses on the site, with the mechanic making no mention of this issue. The appellant provided the following evidence: Photograph 1 of 5; Image 1 of 5 – Signage at the Car Park; Photograph 2 of 5; Photograph 3 of 5; Photograph 4 of 5; Photograph 5 of 5; Notice to Keeper dated 08/10/2024; and Appeal Rejection dated 16/10/2024.