Smart Parking appeal refused

Thanks for your reply. I have just returned from trip abroad and only now had time to investigate this matter further. The company in question is Smart Parking and not PE. I was parked in private car park outside Sports Direct so will try to speak to manager as well as writing to them to try to get this dismissed but don't hold out much hope on that score with this particular company. As stated above I admitted to being the driver and failed to input my VRM having failed to read the signs. I simply paid and pushed green button. Ticket said pay and display so did this. I was unaware of the ANPR cameras and think this will be my only hope for winning appeal.1 signage especially BPA 21.1 2 landowner authority, and 3 contract printing ticket when no vrm entered was also no social justice for penalising driver who has paid fee. Circumstances different from beavis. The ticket printed out the word !!!! where the vrm should have been and yes I certainly was. When I spoke to a car park attendant after discovering my misdemeanour he said someone must have been messing around with machine. I wonder if this could also be used as part of my appeal? Computer doesn't want me to write !!!! in capitals which is what was on my ticket shortened form of Richard.

I have put this together for my POPLA appeal and wonder if you would check it over and give me any further advice.
I have copied verbatim the landowner authority and signage sections from the newbies link but this site won't allow me to post those links here. I have added the following arguments and also have some photos of signage from the car park. Should I attach these to this appeal or wait to see what evidence smart parking submit and send at that time?

This car park did not adhere to the British Car Parking code of practice for the use of ANPR camera technology.
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

The signs in this car park have a tiny space stating ANPR not readable and meaningless to anyone not having an understanding of this technology. I could see no mention of the word camera nor do the signs specify that this technology will be used to monitor cars entering and leaving the site.
From the drivers parking position the most prominent parking sign stated ‘Have you paid and displayed?’ This alongside the driver having not seen signs indicating camera monitoring or the requirement to enter the cars ANPR led the driver to believe that paying for a parking ticket and displaying it on the windscreen was all that was required. This is the case of other pay and display car parks in this town. By providing the driver with a ticket although no ANPR was entered could be presumed to be a variation of contract.

No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge
This case is unlike that of Beavis in that the car park in question is a pay and display car park and the full fee was paid for two hours although the car remained only for an hour and three minutes. This is therefore a punitive charge from an understandable human error by an innocent law abiding driver. This charge can therefore be deemed to be extravagant, exorbitant and unconscionable in the circumstances.

Thanks maybe I could add something from this to the end of my appeal.

I’m sorry I’ve got the drop box app but the technology needed to send my document here is beyond me.
I have basically added this first point to your appeal for Shazam 14 and changed shop name and penalty charge amount to reflect my circumstances.
I am the driver and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below. If this operator remains silent on any appeal point then it is deemed accepted.

1) Faulty equipment.

This was my first visit to this car park. I thought this was a pay and display car park similar to others in the town. I failed to see the signs/instructions informing me to input my VRN into the payment machine so simply paid the correct fee and pressed the button for a ticket. I now know that no ticket should have been issued without a VRN being input into the payment machine. Had the machine rejected my coin and not produced a ticket the misdemeanour would have been avoided.

I most certainly did not type the four letters printed on the parking ticket produced and even if I had, no ticket should have been produced because this is not the correct format for a VRM. Because of this malfunction in the Smart Parking payment machine and the fact that they accepted my payment and issued a ticket without any VRM being input I would submit that no binding contract was in force.

A case very similar to this one was dismissed by Judge Middleton at Bodmin County Court on 26.10.2016.

I require Smart to produce a record of payments received and ANPR record of vehicles entering and leaving the car park between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 11.40 a.m.
I will try to find someone who can help to produce the document here but otherwise will just have to send it and hope for the best.