ANPR from ticket from Car Flow, Paid Money but the event I went to overran! Options

[blankwall]

What is a suitable solution in this case please?
A friend bought the parking for a show I went to, the car park has ANPR and no paper ticketing system and then I received a bill saying too little was paid for parking.

I was thinking of just sending the additional £1.50 to them (!), admitting no liability etc.

[Advertisement]

[blankwall]

Hi there thank you to everyone for your continued help - it seems that appeals should be kept short rather than long and keep to a few specific points.

Details that seem important:

The parking company has sent a booklet which the obviously feel is 'evidence' of their cats iron case but it is very badly produced and seems to work against them:
They are many pictures day and night, but there are none of the entrance at night only during the day. This is because one can't see their signs at the entrance night as they are not illuminated.

One specific image is also very misleading and out of date:
There is an satellite / plan view that apparently shows where their signs are and it does not reflect the site at all - there are major construction works going on - I went down and checked - these are seen in some pictures but not others.

If indeed the vehicle in question was parked on the site, it would have been been in a loading area by the stage door to the venue, not in what could be described as a 'designated parking bay', but it a building site! There could also be a photograph that shows this, next to a container until and some scaffolding not seen in their 'booklet'.

The main question is if all this a waste of time and it would be best for one to just concentrate on the defence based on the keeper's details please?

[ostell]

The more you can show that their evidence cannot be correct the better. It casts doubt on other evidence they give.

[nosferatu1001]

Indeed
If they claim somethin is an accurate plan, but the ir own evidnece (so its beyond doubt that it has been manipulated) shows it cannot be, then either
- their plan is wrong, and they are trying to mislead the court
- their other eivndece is wrong, and they are trying to mislead the court.

[blankwall]

I have received the reply to my appeal - it contains a lot of specific information about the appeal etc so I am not sure how to post it.

But basically:
They claim to follow the Protection of Freedoms act but don't.

Admit they have misquoted me.

They claim other instances when the vehicle in question has been in the car park with incomplete number plates (I know for a fact it was not in the car park on those dates) this shows their system does not work.

Call me the appellant throughout and claim I was a driver at the time of the incident without any evidence.

They make no attempt to refute that their 'evidence' booklet is inaccurate, they just say it is accurate and that all the building works at the site don't affect anything and completely ignore the inaccuracies and misdirection in their pictures!

Not completely sure what to do now.
This all seems like an industry created to support scammers, with an appeals process that supports them.

When Popla sent me a notification that the 'evidence' was available to view for 7 days it wasn't available online (it was only availe a couple of days later), I emailed them to inform them but they did not reply.

[nosferatu1001]

So did you respond with your comments?

What do you mean, reply to my appeal? The POPLA adjudication? If so what was the result?

[blankwall]

Carflow's reply to the POPLA appeal.

I haven't replied yet.

This seems an academic exercise, I will refute all of their points again and explain how they are misrepresenting my case and untrustworthy.
Is this the best course?

Keep it factual etc.
There are spelling and grammatical errors in their submission!

[nosferatu1001]

Noone cares about spelling or grammar
Point out anything in their submission that:
1) supports your claim
2) discredits theirs
3) Is obviously wrong, and your / their evidence proves it

Bullets, in 2000 CHARACTERS or fewer.

[blankwall]

Will do - thanks

[nosferatu1001]

Show us as well
We might spot something you miss.

[blankwall]

So apparently my 'appeal' has been refused.

Interestingly this is not seen on the POPLA website but I have already been sent a bill by the Carflow scammers!

Is it now time to just ignore the jokers?

[Ollyfrog]

Show us as well
We might spot something you miss.

So you didn't bother doing this? We don't know what you said, what they said, and until we all see the POPLA rejection won't even know why it's rejected.

WHO told you that your appeal was rejected?

[blankwall]

>So you didn't bother doing this?

As my appeal time was tight and there had been some less than helpful responses.

>WHO told you that your appeal was rejected?

Carflow.

The POPLA site still says that the appeal is ongoing...


There is also an interesting bit on the email chain that they probably forgot to delete:

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 4:39 PM Carflow - Appeals <appeals@carflow.co.uk> wrote:
Reject.

--------------
This is obviously before any of the process started.

Almost as if it's all just a scam

This post has been edited by blankwall: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 16:29

[Ollyfrog]

So - if I'm understanding you correctly, but this is a bit like swimming through porridge:

1) You appealed to POPLA
2) You have received an email from Carflow attaching/including a "demand for payment/reminder??" (I'm assuming that's what you mean by being "sent a bill")
3) Somewhere in their email they state that your appeal has been unsuccessful? (Do they say "your appeal to POPLA" or just "your appeal", since you know your appeal to Carflow has been unsuccessful since you've moved on to POLPA)
4) POPLA website still shows that appeal is ongoing (what stage does it show? Has Carflow submitted their evidence? Have you responded?)

It could well just be a robo-email to chase payment after they reject an appeal, but without knowing the accurate wording it's a game of Chinese whispers.

[nosferatu1001]

I take issue with "less than helpful comments", given the on,y ones about the operator rebuttal state were from me.
You had time, assuming 15.01 was the first day you got the evidence, you had four or five days. Hard,y "tight"
Of course if you sat on it for a few days first?