PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Eye - Received £100 Parking Charge
Be Sensible
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,019



Hello, I'm posting this on behalf of my brother.

On 24th Febuary 2020 he parked in the Waterdale Village carpark in Doncaster to call into a local shop.

On 27th Febuary he received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye for the sum of £100 alleging thathe failed to pay the car parking charge.

They have provided pictures of him arriving in the car park at 13:29:52 and leaving at 13:59:52 (exactly 30 minutes).

The thing is that he did buy a ticket at 13:31:24 which he still has.

He wrote to Parking Eye explaining that he did have a valid ticket and enclosed a scan of the ticket with his letter.

Parking Eye responded (eventually) this time saying not that he hadn't paid for parking but that he had not entered his number plate details correctly but as a gesture of goodwill if he paid within 14 days they would reduce the "charge" to £20 !!!.

Fact is he did enter his number plate (first four characters) correctly and the characters on the photos provided by Parking Eye match the ticket he purchased on the day.

Again he wrote to Parking Eye explaining that he had a valid ticket and the number plate was correct and included the scan of the ticket again.

On 2nd June 2020 he received a letter from Parking Eye stating that they asked for further information, (no such request was received) and that since he hadn't supplied that information his appeal was out of time and had failed and he has 28 days to pay the full charge.

The last letter provided a POPLA Code for him to appeal to them.

What can he do to make these people understand that he has a valid ticket.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jfollows
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:19
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



Read the BPA code of practice at https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Docu...ICE_CURRENT.pdf, it looks like they (Parking Eye) are implementing 17.4 B "Major Keying Errors"

If you appeal to POPLA, it's unlikely they'll find in your favour on this point, but it won't cost you anything other than time or effort and the decision is not binding on your brother. It would probably have been better had he paid the £20, but it's too late for that. But you could offer to pay £20 on the basis that you didn't receive their follow-up letter, even though you'll be outside their offer of payment within 14 days.

I'm assuming here that his numberplate is longer than 4 characters and that the original requirement was to enter the full number of the car, and that your brother only entered the first four characters.

This post has been edited by jfollows: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Be Sensible
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:32
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,019



Thanks for the speedy response, however:-

The first allegation was for not buying a ticket, which he did,
The second was for not entering the registration correctly which he did and has the ticket to prove it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:37
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Chances of a court considering that the heinous crime of failing to put the final 3 characters of the VRM in worthy of £100, is slim I would say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfollows
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:48
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



QUOTE (Be Sensible @ Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 12:32) *
The second was for not entering the registration correctly which he did and has the ticket to prove it.


Did he enter the registration correctly or not? You seem to say that he only entered the first four characters. Was this because the ticket machine only allowed the first four characters? Or was he supposed to have entered the entire registration, but only provided the first four characters?

If you want to let them take you to court, you'll have a good chance of winning there, but whether you think it's worth doing this is up to you or your brother of course. All I'm saying is that POPLA will probably find in favour of Parking Eye, if your brother didn't provide the full registration, so this isn't going to be a simple way out for him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Be Sensible
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:53
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,019



Parking Eye's responses are inconsistent:-

First they say he didn't pay
So he sends them proof
Then they say he entered the wrong Reg No so they must have checked he paid.
The pictures they sent clearly show that the first 4 characters of his Reg No match the characters on the scan of his ticket he sent them.
He paid, they suffered no loss

As far as I know the ticket machine only needs the first four characters.
We can go and check this
The parking ticket only has space on it for 4 characters
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfollows
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:58
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



QUOTE (Be Sensible @ Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 12:53) *
As far as I know the ticket machine only needs the first four characters.
We can go and check this
The parking ticket only has space on it for 4 characters

I would go and check this, and then appeal to POPLA on this basis if so.
Others may comment on Parking Eye having machines which only require/accept the first four characters of a car's registration.


QUOTE (Be Sensible @ Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 12:53) *
He paid, they suffered no loss

True, but unfortunately not relevant here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 12:33
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



I'm not aware of any PE machines only requiring limited VRM's.

But I think it's irrelevant - they can clearly match the payment to the visit. But there is an argument about the 'major keying error' as they have applied the "Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly)" clause.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 12:35
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



You have to remember that this is a contractual dispute - errors on the NtK do not normally remove the driver's liability. Imagine if you received an invoice from some builders for an extension they had built. Suppose they got the invoice wrong and later sent a corrected invoice. Does this mean you don't have to pay them?

The important thing here is what the sign said about entering a registration, since this is the text of the contract your brother allegedly entered into.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 12:37
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Be Sensible @ Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 12:53) *
He paid, they suffered no loss

This is the bizarre thing. They probably only make money in issuing tickets, i.e. they don't collect the tariff - which is why they are so keen for it to be paid...

The amount charged doesn't have to be any actual loss - but is a deterrent for not following the conditions/paying the tariff. (But as a genuine customer it's harsh)

Worth getting the landholder involved - I think it's these https://www.stmodwen.co.uk/about-us/our-business/ (they probably employed them).

QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 13:35) *
The important thing here is what the sign said about entering a registration, since this is the text of the contract your brother allegedly entered into.

It will almost certainly say 'full correct vehicle registration'.

But perhaps the machine malfunctioned?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Be Sensible
post Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 13:38
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,019



Had chance to go and check the car park yesterday.

Yes the instructions do say "enter full reg No" so on that point my brother failed to comply.
However:-

As stated previously the original charge notice says that the penalty was for not paying the parking charge.
My brother proved that he had paid the parking charge by providing a scan of the ticket.

So Parking Eye change tack and try another bite of the cherry with failure to input the full reg No.

Then because he failed to respond to some never received request for additional information (though what
additional information they could have required I don't know) they raise the penalty back to the original figure.

Surely that is wrong, The charge should have been cancelled as soon as they were given proof that the parking charge
was paid.

Plus:-

In the Code of Practise linked to above the "Major keying error" that would carry a £20 fine is "Motorist has only
entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first 3 letters".

Incidentally the parking ticket does not have space on it for the full reg No.

My brother entered 4 characters which were correct so it isnt a "Major Keying Error" At best it's a "Minor error and
no charge should be levied on that basis either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 14:05
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



At the risk of repeating myself, stop thinking that this is some sort of statutory regulated system like council parking tickets. This is a private contractual issue. They write a letter saying you're in breach of contract because their records show you didn't pay. You write back showing that you did pay (but entered the wrong VRM). They write you a new later saying you now instead owe them money due a different breach of contract - not entering the full VRM.

All a court would be interested in is whether a contract was entered into, and whether the contract was breached. The code of conduct is just unofficial guidelines, not force of law - although the Supreme Court kind of implied that the CoC is binding on PPCs because they have to follow it to be allowed easy access to the DVLA VRM database.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 14:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Be Sensible @ Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 14:38) *
Incidentally the parking ticket does not have space on it for the full reg No.

Their back-end system does...

QUOTE (Be Sensible @ Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 14:38) *
My brother entered 4 characters which were correct so it isnt a "Major Keying Error" At best it's a "Minor error and
no charge should be levied on that basis either.

It's debatable. Guess which one they think it is?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Be Sensible
post Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 15:14
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,019



Am I the only one who thinks this is just not fair or even moral?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 15:17
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Be Sensible @ Sun, 7 Jun 2020 - 16:14) *
Am I the only one who thinks this is just not fair or even moral?

We are agreeing with you!

But private parking companies only make money from issuing tickets - and getting them paid.

If they can reject, they will. Upheld appeals don't generate much income.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 12:56
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The chances of court over this are slim - the main part of the contract was complied with. The partial VRM almost certainly allowed that vehicle to be uniquely identified.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Be Sensible
post Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 13:03
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,019



That's what I thought.

We will write to Parking Eye, Popla and the owners of the land and await their response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:08
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here