PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Correct parking Charge paid!, ANPR car park
Macapaca
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:50
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



The driver paid the correct fee of 50p to stay for up to 1 hour. The PCN notice correctly identified that the car was parked for less than half that time. The registration number was correctly entered and checked on the machine display before the Validate button was hit. The machine display confirmed that the fee had been paid. Unfortunately the pay machine did not issue a receipt. The company in question are just using photographic evIdence that the car was parked. They have not supplied any evidence that payment was not made. As the RK I appealed and asked for visibility of the payment machine log to show that the registration and payment was made. They have refused to supply that information.

So I am determined to fight this unjust charge of £100 when in good faith the correct parking fee of 50p was paid and met all the parking contractual requirements stated on the car park notices.

The initial appeal to the PPC has been rejected and I have now received a POPLA code. I would like advice on whether to submit a POPLA appeal or just ignore all letters except for a court case should it come to that. I am determined to fight this unjust PCN and will happily go to court to fight my case.

Any experienced and wise advice is welcome.

This post has been edited by Macapaca: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 16:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Macapaca
post Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 22:16
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



The PPC POPLA evidence includes an evidence checklist which looks like it is what POPLA expect from the PPC. Checklist item E requires copies of the original representations and notice of rejection. They have included copies of all of their correspondence but not all of mine! Is this something that is worth stressing to POPLA and what weight would it have? It appears that they are being selective in what they show to POPLA. The letter from me that they have not copied to POPLA is the one where I ask for visibility of the machine payment logs with a reasonable date for reply, which they just ignored. I will try to add it to my POPLA comments in reply to the PPC evidence. The online system restricts me to a 2000 word reply. I am not clear whether I can attach my letter or just highlight the fact that the PPC has left it out.

This post has been edited by Macapaca: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 22:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 09:07
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OK, so in your rebuttal, you state that the supposed list of VRMs has nnothing to indicate anything - you cannto tell what machine this was from (if there is more than one), whether this is a complete etract, who performed the extract and when, and nothing to verify that it has not been tampered with. There is no statement verifying that this is, in fact, anything of note other than an excel spreadsheet of VRMs which could be from anywwshere. THis is NOT reliable evidence of anything. It also does NOT disprove your appeal point - that the machine failed to record the full and correct VRM. It in fact SUPPORTS the contention, as the VRM is not listed!

You add to your POPLA comments that your letter of date X was not incluced, whihc is where you asked for Y. You cannot attach new evidence (hence why you should have included it yourself, ideally) and you dont use the online portal, you email.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 10:30
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Thanks nosferatu1001. You are being most helpful. I really appreciate you taking the trouble to read, understand and respond.

In hindsight it is indeed unfortunate that I didn't send my second letter which has been ignored in the PPC evidence other than listing it with date in a table of actions. I wasn't aware that I could email separate from the online response. That's just my lack of experience in dealing with this but hopefully others will read this and learn from it.

I do agree with your point that the VRN list indicates a problem in that my VRN is not listed even though it was entered and was acknowledged by the machine at the time! That is exactly my assertion.

The PPC POPLA evidence includes a Parking Services Agreement with the land owner. It is interesting that they have volunteered this additional information even though I didn't request but perhaps should have. Anyway what it reveals is that the agreement start date is valid for 12 months from March 2016. So the submitted PSA has expired!! It does state that there is a rolling contract extension option but they have not supplied any evidence that it has been taken up! What will POPLA make of that?

This post has been edited by Macapaca: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 10:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 11:17
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Nothing if you dont bring it to their attention!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 11:38
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 11:17) *
Nothing if you dont bring it to their attention!

I will certainly include this point in my comments to POPLA against the PPC evidence. I was just wondering whether this is likely to be an ace card in the opinion of those on here who have experience of POPLA appeals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 12:18
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,685
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



If they cannot prove they have the authority then POPLA should rule for you.


--------------------
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

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 Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:48
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21) *
Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.

I was also concerned about that. However I merely highlighting this fact in my comments to POPLA to lead them to look at this technicality. They should see it themselves but may miss it in the fog of arguments if I don't highlight it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 14:03
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21) *
Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.

That is my concern also. However I am merely highlighting this point to the POPLA assessors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:40
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21) *
Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.

Just received notification from POPLA that my appeal is rejected. I think that I put together some good evidence but none of it was mentioned in the assessors comments! So it does appear that POPLA have 'bent over backwards for the operator' on this occasion. As correct payment was made I am determined to fight this injustice and so the PPC will have to win a successful court appeal before I will reluctantly pay up.

I guess the next step is another letter from the PPC requesting paymenthe followed by letters from their debt collectors. I would appreciate advice on whether I should just ignore all of these now? I clearly won't ignore any letters relating to a court case.

This post has been edited by Macapaca: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:47
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You could write to the PPC, setting out the failures of the POPLA adjudication (we havent seen it yet) and why you will not be paying. State you do not consent to your data being passed to any third party, and will under no circumstances ever make payment to a third party. AS such, passing your data to a debt collector will be a breach of the DPA1998, and will be the PPCs costs to bear. You require they send a fully compliant LBA, that meets the requirements of the new PAP for Debt Action, within 14 days. If they do not do so you will consider the matter closed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 16:47
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:47) *
You could write to the PPC, setting out the failures of the POPLA adjudication (we havent seen it yet) and why you will not be paying. State you do not consent to your data being passed to any third party, and will under no circumstances ever make payment to a third party. AS such, passing your data to a debt collector will be a breach of the DPA1998, and will be the PPCs costs to bear. You require they send a fully compliant LBA, that meets the requirements of the new PAP for Debt Action, within 14 days. If they do not do so you will consider the matter closed.

Are you asking me to post a copy of the assessor's report on here? I can do that if it will help but it is quite long and basically just says that they agree with the PPC that they claim I didn't pay the original 50p parking charge whilst I maintain that the driver did.

Thanks for the info about the new PAP for debt action which only came in on 1 Oct 2017. I wasn't aware of that. Is it not better to wait and see what action/letters that Premier Park now issue? I don't feel inclined to help them. Surely it is better to see if they trip themselves up? The only reference to 14 days in the PAP for DA that I could findo was that they should give 14 days notice for court action.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No they have to give 30 days
They can’t “trip up”. This isn’t a council,ticket, this is a mere invoice.
You can be passive or take charge. Your choice. I ‘now which I’d do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:43
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,428
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Are you asking me to post a copy of the assessor's report on here? I can do that if it will help but it is quite long and basically just says that they agree with the PPC that they claim I didn't pay the original 50p parking charge whilst I maintain that the driver did


Yes, that's normal in these forums, there is an entire thread on MSE showing POPLA decisions for example:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...337&page=94

Just please don't state the Assessor's name, and PLEASE PLEASE break up POPLA's wall of words into short paragraphs first!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 10:17
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Assessor summary of operator case
The driver’s parking session was expired or unpaid.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the driver complied with the car park requirements. He says the driver entered the registration number of the vehicle and paid for one hour parking time. The appellant advised the stay on site was 29 minutes and the payment machine did not issue a ticket. He states there was no signage on site stating that a ticket must be displayed. The appellant says he is entitled to receive payment machine records under the Data Protection Act 1998.

He advised that the notice to keeper only gave him 14 days to reply instead of 28 days as stated in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has provided POPLA with images of the signage on site and the payment machine.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider PoFA 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the operator has successfully transferred liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The terms and conditions of the site state “Please pay for your stay. Please enter the full correct registration of your vehicle at the payment terminals. Up to 1 hour £0.50. If you enter or park on the land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The operator has issued a £100 PCN due to the driver’s parking session was expired or unpaid.

The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle, RO12 XGH, entering the site at 14:06, exiting at 14:36; the period of stay was 30 minutes. The appellant states the driver complied with the car park requirements. He says the driver entered the registration number of the vehicle and paid for one hour parking time. The appellant advised the stay on site was 29 minutes and the payment machine did not issue a ticket. He states there was no signage on site stating that a ticket must be displayed. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a system print out showing payments made throughout the day in question. The evidence provided shows that there were no payments made against the appellant’s vehicle in question. This implies that the driver did not make a payment for parking time.

Furthermore, it is not a requirement to have to display a valid ticket in a vehicle, and the operator has not stated this.

The appellant says he is entitled to receive payment machine records under the Data Protection Act 1998. I note the appellant’s comments however, as previously stated the operator has provided a full system print out which shows payments made throughout the day in question. The operator only needs to provide evidence in the evidence pack that fully rebuts an appellant’s claims.

He advised that the notice to keeper only gave him 14 days to reply instead of 28 days as stated in the PoFA 2012. I note the appellant’s comments however, as previously stated the notice to keeper complies with the requirements set out in PoFA 2012. This means that the operator gave the appellant the correct timescales to give driver details, make a payment or appeal the PCN.

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the driver did not make a payment for parking time. The appellant has not provided POPLA with any evidence to show the driver made a payment, and POPLA assess appeals based upon the evidence provided. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the driver remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that an appropriate payment for parking must be made. As the driver remained on site without making a payment for parking, they failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.



Here are the comoments I sent to PORLANDO, most of which seems to have been ignored. I thought point 1 was very significant but hasn't even been acknowledged!

MOTORIST COMMENTS AGAINST PARKING COMPANY’S SUBMITTED EVIDENCE

1. The Premier Park (PP) evidence includes, under Other Evidence, a Parking Services Agreement (PSA) with a start date of 15 March 2016. Para 1.1 states that it is valid for a period of 12 months and so expired before the claimed PCN date. Para 1.2 does state that there is a rolling contract option but the submitted evidence doesn’t show that this option was taken up. Consequently I refute the claim that PP had any authority to issue a PCN on 7/8/17.

2. The PPC evidence includes photos of signs alleging compliance with BPA guidelines. This evidence is selective and misleading. The photos were taken at a time of year when there is no foliage surrounding the main car park. In August the foliage obscures several of these signs. Also there are NO SIGNS at all in the overflow car park where the vehicle was parked. These points can be seen clearly by looking at the following 360° photo in street view https://www.instantstreetview.com/@53.38593...5h,-0.85p,2.06z. The vehicle was parked where the red car is on the overflow car park i.e. two cars to the right of the CCP ALL DAY PARKING sign on the street view image. I also highlight that this overflow car park constitutes the largest area of the entire car park. There are no signs at all between the overflow car park and the pedestrian exit/entry gate from the car park to the main highway. I therefore refute the claim that the BPA guidelines for signage have been complied with.

3. Checklist point E requires PP to supply the original representations. They have specifically excluded my letter to them dated 14 September (but acknowledged its existance in the PCN History table under Checklist D) which, significantly, requested information on the payment logs. They failed to supply this information at the date requested.

4. The PSA paragraph 2 states that the service is to include a ‘pay by phone system’ (RingGo) for payment. However this facility is not provided at this car park! This would have made paying and receipting much simpler, more reliable and more transparent. I regularly pay by credit card or pay by phone in car parks for this very reason. I recently used RingGo which worked well and provided me with adequate assurance and traceability that payment was successfully made and fully acknowledged. Therefore I refute the claim that the car park was being run in accordance with the PSA.

5. The driver was aware that the car park had camera enforcement and so discussion of grace periods in the PP evidence is irrelevant in this case. The car was parked deliberately in the overflow car park for 29 mins and the VRN entered into the pay machine together with a 50p coin soon after entering the car park. The machine display provided feedback that the VRN was entered and would not have proceeded to request payment otherwise. The fact that the VRN does not appear at all in the PP log submitted under Other Evidence is an indication that the system was not reporting correctly. Also the evidence does not include logs of the coin money collected that day to tally with the system electronic logs. The driver inserted a 50p coin into the machine in which case, under PP’s assertion that payment was not made, they should have had 50p more in the machine than was indicated by the logs. Therefore I maintain that payment of 50p was inserted into the coin machine and that given that the machine display indicated that the VRN was correctly validated and payment inserted then the driver could reasonably assume that payment was indeed accepted. I therefore firmly and strongly refute the assertion that the driver parked without payment of 50p to cover the 29 minute stay.

6. The submitted logs do not have any verifiable evidence of where this is from, who performed the extract and when, whether it is a complete list, whether any other filters have been applied and nothing to verify that it has not been tampered with. It does not disprove my appeal point that the VRN was entered correctly and correct payment made. In fact it shows that the system did not properly record or reveal the VRN and payment as it is not listed!

7. In my POPLA appeal I requested that the logic of the machine automated decisions be supplied and that I am entitled to see this under the Data Protection Act 1998. I note that this information has not been supplied in the PP submitted evidence.

8. There were several people waiting to pay behind the driver and it is interesting that the submitted log has no entries for 20 minutes valid from 14.07. As the ANPR camera records the vehicle entering at 14.06 then there should be entries during this 20 minute period allowing time for the driver to park up and walk to the pay machine. This therefore calls into question the validity of the submitted logs.

9. I request that the Appellant’s appeal is upheld.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:06
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



The following is a redacted version of the letter I have received from Premier Park following the POPLA assessment. I would appreciate any thoughts on how best to respond.

You chose to use the independent alternative dispute resolution service, POPLA, to adjudicate on this PCN and after reviewing all the evidence submitted, they decided to deny your appeal.
Should you consider not making payment now due of £100 we draw your attention to the recent landmark decision in the Supreme Court of the UK, dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd v Mr Barry Beavis. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the UK.
If payment is not received by the due date we will seek to recover theories owed to us via our Debt Recovery Service and may then commence court action to recover what you owe. This will include additional charges to include legal and court costs. Should judgement be awarded in our favour, this may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. The decision of the independent adjudicator will form part of our case in these proceedings.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:23
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,685
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Nothing really to respond - unless you want to reiterate why POPLA got it wrong. POPLA's 'decision' isn't likely to make much difference to the Judge.

Otherwise, it's sit back and see if they issue a claim - However, they are litigious so a claim is possible. (The amount will be around £180-250 should you lose)


--------------------
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

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
Macapaca
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:05
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:23) *
Nothing really to respond - unless you want to reiterate why POPLA got it wrong. POPLA's 'decision' isn't likely to make much difference to the Judge.

Otherwise, it's sit back and see if they issue a claim - However, they are litigious so a claim is possible. (The amount will be around £180-250 should you lose)

Is that likely to be Small Claims Court or County Court? My understanding was that it wouldn't cost me anything other than the £100 'penalty charge' if it went to Small Claims which I understoodles from this forum was the most likely route. What is the additional £150 covering?

Also in their letter they are saying a loss for me would affect my credit rating. My understanding from this forum is that it wouldn't unless I refused to pay following a court case loss. Therefore does this constitute unreasonable pressure on me to try to influence me to give and pay (which I won't in case they follow these forums!).

They quote the landmark Beavis case as though that will convince me to just give up. Having read the Beavis case summaries and commentaries I think my case is sufficiently different. I also believe that I have some compelling evidence that POPLA did not take into account.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:34
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,685
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Small Claims Court. (Which would be at County Court instead of Magistrate's Court)

The usual routine is to claim 'collection/debt' costs of around £50/60, then there's allowed court costs such as solicitor (£50), claim fee and hearing fee.

No, it says may affect your credit. It won't affect your credit as long as you pay within 1 month of any judgment.

'Beavis' doesn't guarantee them a win. (Nor the POPLA opinion - and I'd call it that...)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:37


--------------------
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

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 Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:08
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Small Claims TRACK of the County Court.

£25 filing fee, £25 hearing fee are allowed, as is UP TO £50 for solicitor costs - you always challenge teh latter, as their solicitors DO NOT spend £50 worth of time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: Saturday, 26th May 2018 - 19:36
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.