Advice please:Tried to pay with ApplePay - NCP issued PCN

Hi all

In November I parked at my local tube station (run by NCP) and used ApplePay to pay for the parking. My phone showed £2.50 paid so quick screen grab and off I went.

I was sent a Parking Charge Notice by NCP which I appealed saying that I thought I had paid and didn't think anymore of it. I checked my bank account and no payment had been taken, so I offered to pay the £2.50 for the parking as there was clearly an error with their system as payment d=hadn't been taken.

They rejected my appeal.

I appealed to POPLA and have received the following decision:
POPLA assessment and decision
08/01/2018
Verification Code

4363267674

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameCarly Law
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant’s vehicle was on site without a payment being made for parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they paid for parking at Arnos Grove underground station via ApplePay. They say that ApplePay confirmed that parking was paid at a charge of £2.50 and they took a screenshot of the transaction. The appellant says that they appealed to the operator and sent it copies of the confirmation of payment but this was rejected stating it does not have a record of the payment on the system. They say that they believe there was a problem with the operator’s payment system and they are happy to pay the amount owed. The appellant has provided a screenshot from ApplePay, showing a payment of £2.50 was made.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which states, “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions (which can be found in and around this car park). This includes the following breaches: Failure to pay all the charges due for your stay” and “PCN charges paid within 14 days (early discount) £60, PCN charges paid after 14 days £100”. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without making a payment for parking. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 13:02 and exited the site at 19:33. The operator has also provided a system print out, which shows no payment was received for the appellant’s vehicle on the day in question. The appellant says that they paid for parking at Arnos Grove underground station via ApplePay. They say that ApplePay confirmed that parking was paid at a charge of £2.50 and they took a screenshot of the transaction. The appellant says that they appealed to the operator and sent it copies of the confirmation of payment but this was rejected stating it does not have a record of the payment on the system. They say that they believe there was a problem with the operator’s payment system and they are happy to pay the amount owed. The appellant has provided a screenshot from ApplePay, showing a payment of £2.50 was made. I recognise the appellant’s grounds of appeal and that they have attempted to make a payment for parking. However, POPLA is an evidence-based service and I can only make an assessment on the evidence that has been provided. While I acknowledge the ApplePay screenshot provided by the appellant, this does not show that a payment was against the vehicle in question. The operator’s evidence shows that no payment was received for the vehicle. Additionally, I note the appellant says they believe the fault to be with the operator’s system. However, the operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that other payments were made for parking on the date in question. I also note the appellant’s comments provided in response to the operator’s evidence pack. The appellant has raised new grounds of appeal within the comments section. The comments section is for simply providing comments and not for raising new grounds of appeal. As such, I will not take these grounds into consideration when making my assessment on this case. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the appellant’s vehicle has been on site without a payment being made for parking, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. The operator has issued the PCN correctly.

Any ideas please?