Carflow pcn - no response to the appeal but escalated? Options

[AsusForwin1]

Hello. I need help for a friend but I will put myself in their shoes.

So the driver (they) parked the car on Broadway Surface Car Park in Crawley. They bought a parking ticket from the machine (for £1.40 for 1 hour) which was a "pay and display" ticket (they still have the ticket), which they did display. They then left the car park 45 minutes after entering. The RK received a PCN fine from Carflow with a picture of the car, at the entrance. entering and leaving the car park at the correct times, saying that no amount was paid, so RK must pay £60 within 14 days or £120 thereafter.
So now the RK appealed this when they received the first letter through carflows email, sending them proof of the pay and display ticket. Some time later, they sent another letter of the fine, to the RK again appealed through carflows website. None of the appeals was responded to. Now, the RK receives a "Notice of pending legal action" letter asking to pay £120. The letter mentions that the time period for POPLA appeal is expired.

So now what can the RK do? The RK appealed but hasnt got a response yet. So they're stuck. Any help would be appreciated.

PS> The RK did get an acknowledgement email from carflow for when they appealed the first time through email.

[Advertisement]

[AsusForwin1]

Stop with "I believe" and similar words. Assert. This is a breach as they MUST state what they're using the data captured for. It's not issuing a pcn using the tech which is a breach, it's using the tech withiut this mandatory info.

In the pdf you must give the pictures a ref such as photo 1,2,3 etc, and refer to each picture in your complaint text. That way they can't claim to not have seen it.

Keying errors - isn't wel constructed. The issue is the machine accepted the letter c and immediately printed the ticket. There was no "keying error" here. Issuing a charge when it's your own machines that failed, or those of your principal, is not permissible.

Okay, thank you so very much for you help so far! I really appreciate you taking your time to help me and my friend in this. I've noted all your advice.

Here is the keying error paragraph. Do you think it works well? I cannot seem to find a code of practice for malfunctioning machines or technology so this was the closest to resemble the issue.

Section 17 – Keying Errors.
It is clear that the driver paid for the “pay and display” parking ticket at £1.40 (picture attached) and that there was a malfunction of the meters where the meter issued the ticket after the driver only entered the first letter of the VRM. The machine accepted the letter C and immediately printed the ticket. This is obvious as the ticket has a ‘C’ label and the VRM of the car involved is CXXX XXX. The important point is that the VRM begins with ‘C’. Also, another vehicle where its VRM is ‘C’ does not exist in the UK which means that this ticket does not represent any other car. Therefore, although it was not a “keying error” by the driver, Carflow Ltd breach code 17.3 of the BPA practice.

17.3: No one wants to receive a parking charge for making a mistake when entering their vehicle registration number into a Pay and Display machine or parking validation terminal, when they have paid for the parking event. Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges.

However, although it is not a keying “error” made by the driver, the error was made by the parking machines themselves, and issuing a charge, under those circumstances, is not permissible.

[DWMB2]

Also, another vehicle where its VRM is ‘C’ does not exist in the UK which means that this ticket does not represent any other car.

This doesn't make much sense, I had to read it a few times to see the point you were trying to make - the VRM of the car in this case is also not 'C'. It could, conceivably, represent any car in the car park with a VRM beginning with C, but that isn't the point. The point is that the driver paid for a ticket - and sought to enter the car's full VRM, but was unable to due to the machine malfunctioning.

When you reference the CoP, I'd be explicit here that an obvious error on the part of the car park's machinery has led to an unjustified charge. Use the BPA's own words to explain what's gone wrong, and be as clear as you can that this is their error, not the driver's. The driver didn't make a keying error.

That said, even though 17.3 mentions equipment, I'm in two minds whether the Keying Errors part of the code of practice helps or hinders, because as nosferatu mentions there wasn't a "keying error" in the usual sense - see what others have to say.

[AsusForwin1]

Also, another vehicle where its VRM is ‘C’ does not exist in the UK which means that this ticket does not represent any other car.

This doesn't make much sense, I had to read it a few times to see the point you were trying to make - the VRM of the car in this case is also not 'C'. It could, conceivably, represent any car in the car park with a VRM beginning with C, but that isn't the point. The point is that the driver paid for a ticket - and sought to enter the car's full VRM, but was unable to due to the machine malfunctioning.

When you reference the CoP, I'd be explicit here that an obvious error on the part of the car park's machinery has led to an unjustified charge. Use the BPA's own words to explain what's gone wrong, and be as clear as you can that this is their error, not the driver's. The driver didn't make a keying error.

That said, even though 17.3 mentions equipment, I'm in two minds whether the Keying Errors part of the code of practice helps or hinders, because as nosferatu mentions there wasn't a "keying error" in the usual sense - see what others have to say.

okay, i have been a bit busy so I kind of forgot about this. How does this sound? I understand what you're saying, my main point here is to say there is a keying error clearly, not by the driver but due to the malfunctioning machine. This is the CoP that is the nearest to addressing that point


Section 17 – Keying Errors.
It is clear that the driver paid for the “pay and display” parking ticket at £1.40 (picture attached) and that there was a malfunction of the meters where the meter issued the ticket after the driver only entered the first letter of the VRM. The machine accepted the letter C and immediately printed the ticket, not allowing the motorist to enter the complete VRM. This is obvious as the ticket has a ‘C’ label and the VRM of the car involved is CXXX XXX, with an emphasis on the fact that the VRM begins with ‘C’. The error was made by the car parks machinery which has led to the unjustified charge. There is the responsibility of the car park operators, and equipment manufacturers to ensure that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges, which has occurred in this instance due to the malfunctioning car park machinery. Therefore, although it was not a “keying error” by the driver, Carflow Ltd breach code 17.3 of the BPA practice.

17.3: No one wants to receive a parking charge for making a mistake when entering their vehicle registration number into a Pay and Display machine or parking validation terminal, when they have paid for the parking event. Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges.

However, although it is not a keying “error” made by the driver, the error was made by the parking machines themselves, and issuing a charge, under those circumstances, is not permissible. It must be explicitly emphasised that there was no keying error by the driver. The error was made by the car parks machinery which has led to the unjustified charge. There is the responsibility of the car park operators, and equipment manufacturers to ensure that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges, which has occurred in this instance due to the malfunctioning car park machinery.

[nosferatu1001]

Why repeat yourself?

[AsusForwin1]

Why repeat yourself?

I did it for the emphasis but i have removed that now.

I believe this is the fully constructed complaint. DO you guys think it is good enough to submit now?

Attached File(s)

 Carflow_PCN___BPA_complaint1.pdf ( 433.87K ) Number of downloads: 18

 

[hcandersen]

All photos have gone.

Now, the RK receives a "Notice of pending legal action" letter asking to pay £120.

Where is it?

The BPA complaint has nothing to do with the legal process, so don't build up your hopes or fail to take any other action required of you under the legal process.

But what legal process?

Maybe there isn't one.

If the driver has been identified by you then POFA doesn't apply, the creditor(whoever that might be) can pursue them through the courts.

If not, then who, if anyone, is actually being pursued? No demand for payment can be made of the the RK under POFA, all this does is to identify who may be pursued, but the pursuit falls outside POFA:

reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the driver about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the driver to independent adjudication or arbitration.


And as POPLA cannot consider mitigating circumstances*, then frankly IMO anyone with relevant circumstances is better off pleading their case in court which deals with equity and fairness, not just an 'assessor's' idea of the applicable law:

While we appreciate that motorists may not always be able to follow the terms and conditions of a car park due to circumstances outside of their control, we cannot allow an appeal due to mitigating circumstances alone.

[AsusForwin1]

All photos have gone.

Now, the RK receives a "Notice of pending legal action" letter asking to pay £120.

Where is it?

ohh okay sorry my bad. I will add the pictures again. Do i add it in the Complaint to BPA pdf file aswell?

here are all the letters


Notice of pending legal action


First letter to RK fo the PCN


Rear of the letter

The BPA complaint has nothing to do with the legal process, so don't build up your hopes or fail to take any other action required of you under the legal process.

But what legal process?

Maybe there isn't one.

If the driver has been identified by you then POFA doesn't apply, the creditor(whoever that might be) can pursue them through the courts.

If not, then who, if anyone, is actually being pursued? No demand for payment can be made of the the RK under POFA, all this does is to identify who may be pursued, but the pursuit falls outside POFA:

reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the driver about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the driver to independent adjudication or arbitration.


And as POPLA cannot consider mitigating circumstances*, then frankly IMO anyone with relevant circumstances is better off pleading their case in court which deals with equity and fairness, not just an 'assessor's' idea of the applicable law:

While we appreciate that motorists may not always be able to follow the terms and conditions of a car park due to circumstances outside of their control, we cannot allow an appeal due to mitigating circumstances alone.

Okay, someone earlier on in the post mentioned that this email to them already identified the driver. If that is the case then only the name was identified






so from this, to go forward with the legal proceedings is to go through court? Do i request this myself?

[nosferatu1001]

No, they would have to raise a claim, within 6 years if the parking incident.